Richmond City Council
October 18, 2022

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 34 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx code requirements that include approval of exterior lighting plans to ensure that exterior lighting fixtures are shielded to prevent light spill. With the residential nature of the proposed project and upon the approval of the lighting plans, the proposed project would not result in new or more significant impacts related to light and glare that have not already been analyzed in the General Plan FEIR, nor would the proposed project result in more significant or more severe impacts that could not be substantially mitigated by the application of uniformly applicable development policies.

Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required.

FEIR Mitigation Measures
MM 3.15-1 As a condition of authorizing development within existing undeveloped areas or demolishing commercial or industrial structures that were built prior to 1950, the City shall require the applicant to provide photographs or another appropriate form of visual record of the project location’s existing physical setting, and a photograph or another appropriate form of visual record of one or more public vistas of the project location (e.g., views from public parks or civic buildings). These visual records shall be submitted to the Planning Department or its designee for appropriate storage and retrieval for future studies of the City’s evolving urban character.

MM 3.15-2a All street lighting shall be directed downward and shielded to prevent light spill onto surrounding properties, sky glow, and glare.

MM 3.15-2b The City shall restrict the use of high-level outdoor lighting for new homes, particularly along the hillside ridges.

MM 3.15-2c Landscaping shall be incorporated along internal roads and near off-site homes to reduce spill light emanating from vehicles and buildings.

MM 3.15-2d The City shall require design review of any project containing reflective glass or metal building materials that exceed 50 percent of any building surface or the first three floors.

Conclusion
There is no additional information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to aesthetics, light, and glare. The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding aesthetics, light, and glare remain unchanged. No further analysis is required.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 35 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
II. Agricultural and Forest Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of
the California Resources
Agency, to nonagricultural use?
None
identified
No No No None
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
None
identified
No No No None
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public
Resources Code Section
12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public
Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
None
identified
No No No None
d) Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest
use?
None
identified
No No No None

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 36 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
e) Involve other changes in
the existing environment
which, due to their
location or nature, could
result in conversion of
Farmland, to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
None
identified
No No No None
a) Conversion of Important Farmland
Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The General Plan FEIR determined that 536.52 acres of land within the City of Richmond are designated for Agricultural uses. The Agricultural land use designation includes land for grazing, crop production, small-scale farming, and community gardens while allowing from some residential uses.2 Overall, the General Plan FEIR determined that impacts related to agriculture and forest resources would not be significant.

According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the project site is listed as Urban and Built-Up Land.
3 This condition precludes the potential for new impacts associated with the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
b) Agricultural Zoning and Williamson Act Contracts
Would the project: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The General Plan FEIR determined that impacts related to agriculture and forest resources would not be significant.
2 City of Richmond. 2011. General Plan EIR. Accessed August 2, 2021. 3 California Department of Conservation. 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map for Contra Costa County. Website:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/con16.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 37 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract.4 As noted above, the project site is located on land listed as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP. Therefore, the proposed project would not disturb or reduce agricultural land within the City, including areas protected under Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to conflict with existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contract beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. c, d) Rezoning or Conversion of Forest Land or Timberland Would the project: Conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? As previously mentioned, the General Plan FEIR determined that impacts related to forest resources, including forest land and timberland, would not be significant.

The project site does not contain forest land or significant amounts of trees. These conditions preclude the potential for new impacts associated with rezoning or conversion of forest land or timberland. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to rezoning or conversion of forest land beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
e) Pressures to Convert Farmland or Forest Land
Would the project: Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The General Plan FEIR determined that impacts related to the conversion of farmland or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest use would not be significant.

The project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP and does not contain forest land.5 The project site is designated as Public, Cultural and Institutional by the General Plan, which is a non-agricultural and non-forest land designation and is intended for urban development. No part of the project site would be eligible for use as agricultural land under the current zoning or land use designations. This condition precludes the potential for new impacts associated with the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to conversion of agricultural or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest land uses beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
4 Department of Conservation. 2017. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land. Website: https://www.sjgov.org/commdev/cgibin/cdyn.exe/file/Planning/EIR%20Schulte%20Road%20Logistics%20Center%20Draft/CDOC%202016_State%20of%20CA%20Willia mson%20Act%20Map.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2021. 5 California Department of Conservation. 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map for Contra Costa County. Website:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/con16.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 38 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Conclusion
There is no additional information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to agricultural and forest resources. The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding the topic remain unchanged. No further analysis is required.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 39 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
III. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No MM 3.3-1,
MM 3.3-2a
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant
for which the project
region is non-attainment
under an applicable
federal or State ambient
air quality standard?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No MM 3.3-2a,
MM 3.3-2b,
MM 3.3-2c,
MM 3.3-2d,
MM 3.14-3
c) Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No MM 3.3-3,
MM 3.3-2a,
MM 3.3-3d
d) Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors or) adversely
affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No none
a) Air Quality Plan Conflict
Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The Richmond General Plan 2030 FEIR (General Plan FEIR) identified that “implementation of the proposed General Plan could provide new sources of regional air emissions that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan.”6 At the same time, the General Plan FEIR identified MM 3.3-1 that could reduce the impacts. It also states that “generally, if a project is planned in a way that results in the minimization of (Vehicle Miles Traveled [VMT]], both within the project area and the surrounding area in which it is located, and minimizes air pollutant emissions, that aspect of the project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan.” 6 City of Richmond. General Plan Final EIR. Website: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2608/General-Plan-2030. Accessed November 17, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 40 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx The General Plan FEIR’s MM 3.3-1 recommends transportation management measures which encourage the use of public transit and active transportation to reduce the transportation-related pollutants and emissions. The General Plan FEIR determined that impacts of VMT growth would be significant and unavoidable after implementation of identified mitigation because it is uncertain that the mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), where the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulates air quality. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for identifying non-attainment and attainment areas for each criteria pollutant within the Air Basin. The Air Basin is designated non-attainment for State standards for 1-hour and 8-hour ozone, 24-hour respirable particulate matter (PM10), annual PM10, and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5).7
The BAAQMD has adopted several air quality policies and plans to address regional air quality, the most recent of which is the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan was adopted in April of 2017 and serves as the regional Air Quality Plan (AQP) for the Air Basin for attaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to protect public health and protect the climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan acknowledges that the BAAQMD’s two stated goals of protection are closely related. As such, the 2017 Clean Air Plan identifies a wide range of control measures intended to decrease both criteria pollutants8 and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.9 The 2017 Clean Air Plan also accounts for projections of population growth provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments and VMT provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and identifies strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan if it would result in substantial new regional emissions not foreseen in the air quality planning process.

The BAAQMD does not provide a numerical threshold of significance for project-level consistency analysis with AQPs. Therefore, the following criteria will be used for determining a project’s consistency with the AQP.
• Criterion 1: Does the project support the primary goals of the AQP? • Criterion 2: Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQP? • Criterion 3: Does the project disrupt or hinder the implementation of any AQP control measures?
7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act. Air Quality Guidelines. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed November 17, 2021. 8 The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six of the most common air pollutants—carbon monoxide, lead, ground-level ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide—known as “criteria” air pollutants (or simply “criteria pollutants”). 9 A greenhouse gas (GHG) is any gaseous compound in the atmosphere that is capable of absorbing infrared radiation, thereby trapping and holding heat in the atmosphere. By increasing the heat in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases are responsible for the greenhouse effect, which ultimately leads to global warming.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 41 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Criterion 1
The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, the current AQP to date, are to:
• Attain air quality standards;
• Reduce population exposure to unhealthy air and protect public health in the Bay Area; and • Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.

A measure for determining whether the proposed project supports the primary goals of the AQP is if the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQP. This measure is determined by evaluating whether the proposed project was reasonably accounted for in the AQP.

The BAAQMD estimates the regional emissions inventory for the Air Basin, in part, from the regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). These demographic trends are incorporated into Plan Bay Area 2040, compiled by ABAG and the MTC, to determine priority transportation projects and estimate VMT in the Bay Area and are based on cities and counties’ general plan land use designations. Therefore, these regional demographic projections derived from local jurisdictions’ land use patterns form the foundation of the emissions inventory for the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As such, projects consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the applicable AQP, the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Large projects that exceed regional employment, population, and housing planning projections have the potential to be inconsistent with the regional inventory compiled as part of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

The applicable General Plan for the proposed project is the Richmond General Plan 2030 (General Plan). The General Plan was adopted in 2012, which was considered in the growth assumptions of the BAAQMD’s latest 2017 AQP. The project site is designated “Public, Cultural and Institutional” by the City of Richmond General Plan and is zoned “Public, Cultural, and Institutional (PCI)” by the Richmond Zoning Ordinance.10
The General Plan lists allowable uses under Public, Cultural and Institutional designation. The Industrial Public, Cultural and Institutional designation is not intended for residential uses. The proposed project would require a GPA to designate the project site for Medium-Intensity Mixed-Use (Commercial Emphasis) and a zoning amendment to Commercial Mixed-Use, Commercial Emphasis (CM-3). The Medium-Intensity Mixed-Use (Commercial Emphasis) designation allows for up to 50 dwelling units per acre on the 3.1-acre project site, for a total base density of up to 155 units. At 135 units, the proposed project would be within the density permitted by the General Plan. However, the proposed project presents an inconsistency with the existing land use designation and therefore the growth assumptions contained in the AQP. As such, the proposed project’s anticipated population growth of 396 people, as discussed in Section XIII, Population and Housing, would add to the City’s 2021 population estimate of 110,130 people to result in a cumulative population of 110,526 people following project 10 City of Richmond. General Plan 2030. https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2608/General-Plan-2030. Accessed November 12, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 42 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx implementation.11 As the Plan Bay Area 2040 forecasted the City of Richmond to experience a population of 126,385 people in 2020,12 the proposed project’s anticipated population growth would be within the growth assumptions contained in the Plan Bay Area 2040 and by extension the AQP.

Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use assumptions used in the AQP.

Furthermore, as discussed in Impact III(b) and Impact III(c), implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD operational or construction thresholds for criteria pollutants. As such, development of the project site has been reasonably accounted for in the AQP. Because the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD regional thresholds of significance on an average daily or annual basis, the proposed project would be consistent with the first criterion.

Criterion 2
The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains control measures to reduce air pollutants and GHGs at the local, regional, and global levels. Along with the traditional stationary, area, mobile source, and transportation control measures, the 2017 Clean Air Plan contains many control measures designed to protect the climate and promote mixed use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary mobile sources. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also includes an account of the implementation status of control measures identified in the prior 2010 Clean Air Plan.

Table 2 lists the relevant Clean Air Plan policies to the proposed project and evaluates its consistency with the policies. As shown below, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable measures.

Table 2: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures Control Measure Project Consistency
Buildings Control Measures
BL1: Green Buildings Consistent. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. The proposed
project would comply with the latest energy
efficiency standards and incorporate applicable
energy efficiency features designed to reduce project
energy consumption.

BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Consistent. The proposed project would provide 16,602 square feet of landscaping which would serve
to reduce the urban heat island effect and would
include the planting of shade trees.
11 California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State – January 1, 2020, and 2021. Website: https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/. Accessed December 3, 2021. 12 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2017. Projections 2040. Website: http://projections.planbayarea.org/data. Accessed December 3, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 43 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Control Measure Project Consistency
Energy Control Measures
EN1: Decarbonize Electricity Generation Consistent. The project applicant would, at a minimum, be required to conform to the energy
efficiency requirements of the California Building
Standards Code, also known as Title 24. The 2019
Title 24 Standards are the current State building
regulations, which went into effect on January 1,
2020. Proposed buildings that would receive building
permits after January 1, 2020, would be subject to
the 2019 Title 24 Standards, including the proposed
project. Moreover, the proposed project would be
required to comply with Richmond’s Code of
Ordinances 100.0(e).2.A, which would require the
proposed project to include solar panels and exclude
natural gas infrastructure in the project design.13
EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand
Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
NW2: Urban Tree Planting Consistent. The proposed project would include 16,602 square feet of landscaped area. Plantings
would include trees, shrubs, and groundcover.

WA3: Green Waste Diversion Consistent. The waste service provider for the proposed project will be required to meet the
Assembly Bill (AB) 341 and Senate Bill (SB) 939 and SB
1374 requirements that require waste service
providers to divert green waste. All vegetation refuse
generated during operations of the proposed project
would be disposed of off-site by the waste service
provided.

WA4: Recycling and Waste Reduction Consistent: The waste service provider for the proposed project will be required to meet the AB
341, SB 939 and SB 1374 requirements that require
waste to be recycled.

Stationary Control Measures
SS36: Particulate Matter from Trackout Consistent with Mitigation. Mud and dirt that may be tracked out onto the nearby public roads during
construction activities shall be removed promptly by
the contractor based on BAAQMD’s requirements.

General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-2a, identified under
Impact III(b), would require implementation of BMPs
recommended by BAAQMD for fugitive dust
emissions during construction.
13 City of Richmond. Code of Ordinances. 2021. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/richmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ARTVIBURE_CH6.02BUCORI_6.02.030AMADDE.

Accessed December 1, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 44 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Control Measure Project Consistency
SS37: Particulate Matter from Asphalt Operations Consistent. Asphalt used during the construction of the proposed project would be subject to BAAQMD
Regulation 8, Rule 15-Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts.

Although this rule does not directly apply to the
proposed project, it does limit the reactive organic
gas (ROG) content of asphalt available for use during
construction through regulating the sale and use of
asphalt. By using asphalt from facilities that meet
BAAQMD regulations, the proposed project would be
consistent with this Clean Air Plan measure.

Transportation Control Measures
TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities. Consistent. There are existing sidewalks along the proposed project’s frontage on Bissell Avenue.

Several bus stops are located within a short walking
distance of the site, including the Macdonald Avenue
and 37th Street stop, located 530 feet northwest of
the project site; the Macdonald Avenue and 39th
Street, located 470 feet north of the project site; and the Macdonald Avenue and 42nd Street stop, located
590 feet northeast of the project site. Therefore, the
proposed project would not conflict with the
BAAQMD’s efforts to encourage planning for bicycle
and pedestrian facilities.

Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposedfinal-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed August 12, 2021.

In summary, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable measures under the 2017 Clean Air Plan after the implementation of General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-2a; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Criterion 2 after incorporation of mitigation.

Criterion 3
The proposed project is located close to a range of public transit options therefore would not discourage the use of public transit and active transportation. The proposed project would not preclude the extension of a transit line or bike path, propose excessive parking beyond parking requirements, or otherwise create an impediment or disruption to implementation of any AQP control measures. As shown in Table 2 above, the proposed project would incorporate several AQP control measures as project design features such as complying with energy efficiency standards contained in the 2019 California Building Standards Code (CBC) and installing landscaping across the project site. Considering this information, the proposed project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQP control measures therefore it is consistent with Criterion 3.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 45 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Summary
As addressed above, the proposed project would be consistent with all three criteria after the incorporation of General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-2. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to conflicts with or obstructions to the applicant AQP than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. b) Air Quality Standard, Criteria Pollutants
Would the project: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
This impact is related to the cumulative effect of a project’s regional criteria pollutant emissions. By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact resulting from emissions generated over a large geographic region. The non-attainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the Air Basin, and this regional impact is a cumulative impact.

Therefore, new development projects (such as the proposed project) within the Air Basin would contribute to this impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in non-attainment of regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when evaluated in combination with past, present, and future development projects.

The Richmond General Plan FEIR concluded that regional air quality impacts would be potentially significant and unavoidable due to the uncertainty of individual project operational emissions impacts.14 Implementation of General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-2a through 3.3-2d would reduce emissions impacts during both construction and operation of the proposed project. Implementation of MM

3.3-2a and 3.3-2b, which address project review and incorporation of BAAQMD-recommended BMPs, would reduce construction emissions impacts to less than significant while implementation of MMS 3.3-2c and 3.3-2d, which address the incorporation of all feasible emissions reduction measures. Upon certification of the General Plan FEIR, the City ultimately concluded that incorporation of identified mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant levels for individual development projects.

Potential localized and regional impacts would result in exceedances of State or federal standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOX), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), or CO. NOX emissions are of concern because of potential health impacts from exposure to NOX emissions during both construction and operation and as a precursor in the formation of airborne ozone. PM10 and PM2.5 are of particular concern during construction because of the potential to emit exhaust emissions from the operation of off-road construction equipment and fugitive dust during earth-disturbing activities (construction fugitive dust). CO emissions are of particular concern during project operation because operational CO hotspots are related to increases in on-road vehicle congestion. 14 City of Richmond. General Plan Final EIR. Website: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2608/General-Plan-2030. Accessed November 17, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 46 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx ROG emissions are also important because of their participation in the formation of ground-level ozone. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and that can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, elderly, and young children.

The cumulative analysis focuses on whether a specific project would result in cumulatively considerable emissions. According to Section 15064(h)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, the existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone does not constitute substantial evidence that the project’s incremental effects would be cumulatively considerable. Rather, the determination of cumulative air quality impacts for construction and operational emissions is based on whether the project would result in regional emissions that exceed the BAAQMD regional thresholds of significance for construction and operations on a project level. The thresholds of significance represent the allowable amount of emissions each project can generate without generating a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts. Therefore, a project that would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance on the project level also would not be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to these regional air quality impacts. Construction and operational emissions are discussed separately below.

Construction Emissions
During construction, fugitive dust would be generated from site grading and other earthmoving activities. The majority of this fugitive dust would remain localized and would be deposited near the project site. However, the potential for health impacts from fugitive dust exists unless control measures are implemented to reduce the emissions from this source. Exhaust emissions would also be generated from the operation of the off-road construction equipment and from on-road construction worker vehicles, vendor trucks, and haul trucks.

Construction Fugitive Dust
As previously mentioned, fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) would be generated during earthmoving activities but would largely remain localized near the project site. The BAAQMD does not recommend a numerical threshold for fugitive dust particulate matter emissions. Instead, the BAAQMD bases the determination of significance for fugitive dust on considering the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions control measures are implemented for a project as recommended by the BAAQMD, then fugitive dust emissions during construction are not considered significant.

As required General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-2, the proposed project would implement BMPs recommended by BAAQMD for fugitive dust emissions during construction. As such, with mitigation, short-term construction impacts associated with fugitive dust emissions would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 47 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Construction Air Pollutant Emissions: ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0, was used to estimate the proposed project’s construction emissions. CalEEMod provides a consistent platform for estimating construction and operational emissions from a wide variety of land use projects and is the model recommended by the BAAQMD for estimating project emissions. Estimated construction emissions are compared with the applicable thresholds of significance established by the BAAQMD to assess ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5 construction emissions to determine significance.

Construction of the proposed project is expected to start in September 2023 and to conclude in July 2025. For the purpose of this analysis, construction of the proposed project was assumed to correspond to these dates. If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction emissions would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements that would affect future construction equipment. The duration of construction activities and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by CEQA Guidelines.

As shown in Table 3, the proposed project would be constructed in a total of 500 workdays. For a more detailed description of the construction parameters used in estimating air pollutant emissions modeling, please refer to Appendix B.

Table 3: Preliminary Construction Schedule
Phase
Phase Start
Date Phase End Date
Total Number of
Working Days per
Week
Total Number of
Working Days
Demolition 9/1/2023 10/23/2023 5 37
Building A Building Construction
(Renovation) 10/24/2023 6/13/2025 5 429
Building A Architectural Coating
(Renovation) 6/14/2025 7/31/2025 5 34
Building B Site Preparation 9/1/2023 9/19/2023 5 13
Building B Grading 9/20/2023 10/25/2023 5 26
Building B Building Construction 10/26/2023 12/18/2024 5 300 Building B Paving 12/19/2024 1/23/2025 5 26
Building B Architectural Coating 1/24/2025 2/28/2025 5 26 The calculations of pollutant emissions from the construction equipment account for the type of equipment, horsepower, and load factors of the equipment, along with the duration of use. Project construction emissions are presented in Table 4 and compared with the appropriate significance thresholds. As shown therein, emissions generated during project construction would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 48 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Table 4: Construction Emissions (Unmitigated Average Daily Rate) Parameter
Air Pollutants1
(tons)
ROG NOX PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust)
Building A Construction
Demolition–2023 0.03 0.29 0.01 0.01
Building Construction–2023 0.04 0.32 0.01 0.01
Building Construction–2024 0.22 1.61 0.06 0.06
Building Construction–2025 0.09 0.69 0.02 0.02
Architectural Coating–2025 1.20 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Building B Construction
Site Preparation–2023 0.01 0.08 <0.01 <0.01
Grading–2023 0.02 0.29 0.01 0.01
Building Construction–2023 0.04 0.30 0.01 0.01
Building Construction–2024 0.21 1.56 0.06 0.06
Paving–2023 0.00 0.03 <0.01 <0.01
Paving–2024 0.01 0.05 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating–2025 0.31 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Total Emissions (tons) 2.18 5.24 0.20 0.19
Daily Average
Total Emissions (lbs) 4,354.34 10,489.72 393.58 377.82
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)2 8.71 20.98 0.79 0.76 Significance Threshold (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
lbs = pounds
ROG = reactive organic gases
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter 1 Totals may not add up due to rounding. Calculations use unrounded totals. 2 Calculated by dividing the total lbs of emissions by the total number of nonoverlapping working days of construction (500 workdays).

Source: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix B).

As shown in Table 4, total construction emissions considering all construction activities are below the recommended thresholds of significance; therefore, project construction would have less than significant impact related to emissions of ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5. As previously discussed, the proposed project would implement General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-2a for dust control

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 49 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx BMPs recommended by the BAAQMD to reduce potential impacts related to fugitive dust emissions during project construction. As such, project construction would have a less than significant impact with mitigation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to construction emissions than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

Operational Emissions
Operational Air Pollutant Emissions: ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 Operational emissions would be generated from area, energy, and mobile sources. Area sources include emissions from architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape equipment, while energy sources include emissions from the combustion of natural gas for water and space heating, as applicable. Mobile sources include exhaust and road dust emissions from the vehicles that would travel to and from the project site. Pollutants of concern include ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5.

Project operations were analyzed starting in 2025, the first calendar year following construction operations. The major sources for proposed operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 include motor vehicle traffic, use of landscaping maintenance equipment, and the occasional repainting of buildings.

As discussed in Section 2.3, Project Description, the proposed project would convert a two-story public office building into 59 housing units in Building A and construct Building B with 76 multifamily dwelling units. It should be noted that the existing land use’s operational emissions are not included above. As such, the emissions estimates contained herein represent a conservative assessment of project impacts. Operational emissions of the respective pollutants were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. For detailed assumptions used to estimate emissions, see Appendix B. The estimated average daily emissions are presented in Table 5, while annual emissions from project operations are presented in Table 6.

Table 5: Average Daily Operational Emissions (Unmitigated) Emissions Source
Pounds per Day
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 4.62 0.06 0.03 0.03
Energy 0 0 0 0
Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 1.67 1.39 2.73 0.74
Total Daily Project Emissions1 6.29 1.45 2.76 0.77
Thresholds of Significance2 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Notes:

ROG = reactive organic gases
NOX = nitrous oxides.

PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter 1 Totals may not add up due to rounding. Calculations use unrounded totals. 2 Calculated by dividing the total lbs of emissions by the total number days in a year (365 workdays).

Source: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix B).

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 50 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Table 6: Annual Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)
Emissions Source
Tons per Year
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.84 0.01 0.01 0.01
Energy 0 0 0 0
Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 0.30 0.25 0.50 0.14
Estimated Net Annual Project Emissions1 1.15 0.26 0.50 0.14 Thresholds of Significance 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Notes:

ROG = reactive organic gases NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter 1 Totals may not add up due to rounding. Calculations use unrounded totals.

Source: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix B).

As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance during operation, indicating that ongoing project operations would not be considered to have the potential to generate a significant quantity of air pollutants. It should be noted that the existing land use’s operational emissions are not included above. As such, the emissions estimates contained herein represent a conservative assessment of project impacts. Long-term operational impacts associated with criteria pollutant emissions generated by the proposed project would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to operational criteria pollutant emissions than what were previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

Operational Carbon Monoxide Hotspot
The CO emissions from traffic generated by the proposed project are a concern at the local level.

Congested intersections can result in the potential for high, localized concentrations of CO, known as a CO hotspot.

The BAAQMD recommends a screening analysis to determine whether a project has the potential to contribute to a CO hotspot. The screening criteria identify when site-specific CO dispersion modeling is necessary. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality for local CO if the following screening criteria are met:

1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; or

2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; or

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 51 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx

3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

As discussed in Section XVI, Transportation, the Draft Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the proposed project15 notes that existing transit routes are adequate to accommodate projectgenerated transit trips. Existing stops along Macdonald Avenue are within an acceptable walking distance of the site. The volume of riders that would be generated by the proposed project would be accommodated by existing bus services, with several lines and frequent headways, near the project site. In accordance with MM 3.14-3, the City will continue to coordinate with transit agencies to seek further improvements and enhancements to the existing system. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the local congestion management plan after incorporated of General Plan FEIR mitigation.

As indicated in the TIS prepared for the proposed project,16 the proposed project would result in a net increase of 879 daily trips, with a net increase of 74 trips in the AM peak-hour and a net increase of 85 trips in the PM peak-hour. According to the Existing Plus Project intersection volumes estimated in the TIS, the intersection of 37th Street and Macdonald Avenue would be the intersection to experience the greatest peak-hour traffic volumes with 1,855 vehicles during the PM peak-hour. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any nearby intersection to have peak-hour traffic volumes exceeding 44,000 vehicles per hour.

Nonetheless, CO hotspots can occur when a transportation facility’s design or orientation, including that of the proposed parking structure, prevents the adequate dispersion of CO emissions from vehicles, resulting in the accumulation of local CO concentrations. The design or orientation of a transportation facility which may prevent the dispersion of CO emissions include tunnels, parking garages, bridge underpasses, natural or urban canyons, below-grade roadways, or other features where vertical or horizontal atmospheric mixing is substantially limited. Adjacent roadways that would receive new vehicle trips generated by the proposed project do not include roadway segments where vertical or horizontal atmospheric mixing is substantially limited. Based on the above criteria, the proposed project would not exceed the CO screening criteria and would have a less than significant impact related to CO. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to CO hotspots than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

Summary
As addressed above, air pollutants from both the construction and operation of the proposed project are well below the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance. As required by General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-2a, the proposed project would implement BMPs recommended by BAAQMD to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction. Therefore, with mitigation, short-term construction impacts associated with fugitive dust emissions would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. In addition, as shown above, the proposed project would 15 W-Trans. 2021. Draft Traffic Impact Study for the 100 38th Street Mixed Use Project. Accessed November 11, 2021. 16 Ibid.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 52 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx generate criteria pollutant emissions below the BAAQMD’s applicable significance thresholds. Finally, the vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s applicable screening criteria for the potential generation of a CO hotspots. As such, impacts would be less than significance with existing General Plan FEIR mitigation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to criteria pollutant emissions, during construction and operation, and the generation of a CO hotspot than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
c) Sensitive Receptors
Would the project: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The General Plan FEIR determined that implementation of MM 3.3-3 would ensure impacts would be less than significant. MM 3.3-3 requires all new industrial and commercial development projects that have the potential to emit toxic air contaminants (TAC) to be located an adequate distance from existing and proposed development used by sensitive receptors, including residences, schools, day care facilities, congregate care facilities, hospitals, or other places of long-term residency. MM 3.3-3 also requires that proposed sensitive receptors be sited an adequate distance from land uses known to emit TACs, as identified in the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
17 As the proposed project would constitute the
development of residences beyond distances recommended in the ARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective with respect to existing land uses which generate pollutants of concern, the proposed project is considered to implement General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-3 by design.

The BAAQMD defines a sensitive receptor as the following: “Facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals, and residential areas.” As specified by the BAAQMD, health risk and hazard impacts should be analyzed for sensitive receptors within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site.18 The closest existing sensitive receptors include the following:
• Single-family residences, as close as 100 feet northwest of the project site; • A Little World Montessori School daycare, as close as 550 feet north of the project site; • A residential neighborhood, as close as 650 feet north of the project site; • A residential neighborhood, as close as 430 feet west of the project site; • DeJean Middle School, as close as 950 feet west of the project site; • Single-family residences, as close as 80 feet south of the project site; and • King Elementary School, as close as 775 feet south of the project site. 17 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Accessed December 6, 2021. 18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed April 11, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 53 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx The following four criteria were applied to determine the significance of project emissions to sensitive receptors:
• Criterion 1: Construction of the project would not result in an exceedance of the health risk significance thresholds.
• Criterion 2: The cumulative health impact would not result in an exceedance of the cumulative health risk significance thresholds.
• Criterion 3: Operation of the project would not result in an exceedance of the health risk significance thresholds.
• Criterion 4: A CO hotspot assessment must demonstrate that the project would not result in the development of a CO hotspot that would cause an exceedance of the CO ambient air quality standards.

Criterion 1: Project Construction Toxic Air Pollutants
An assessment was made of the potential health impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors resulting from TAC emissions during construction. A summary of the assessment is provided below, while the detailed assessment is provided Appendix B.

Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified by the ARB as a carcinogenic substance. Major sources of DPM include off-road construction equipment and heavy-duty delivery truck and worker activities. For purposes of this analysis, DPM is represented as exhaust emissions of PM2.5.

Estimation of Construction DPM Emissions
Construction DPM emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, as described under the discussion for Impact III(b). As presented in Table 3, the proposed project's construction is anticipated to occur from September 2023 through July 2025. Construction emissions were calculated for each construction activity, as displayed in Table 4. On-site and off-site emissions generated during project construction were modeled with a working schedule of 8 hours per day, 5 days per week.

Based on the analysis presented in this section, emissions were estimated for an unmitigated scenario and a mitigated scenario demonstrating use of construction equipment which meet the EPA and ARB’s Tier IV Interim standards for engines greater than 50 horsepower. Equipment tiers refer to a generation of emission standards established by the EPA and the ARB that apply to diesel engines in off-road equipment. The “tier” of an engine depends on the model year and horsepower rating; generally, the newer a piece of equipment is, the greater the tier it is likely to have. Table 7 summarizes the emission rates of unmitigated and mitigated DPM during construction of the proposed project, as analyzed for construction of the proposed project. Note that the “unmitigated” DPM emissions shown below do not incorporate implementation of General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-3d.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 54 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Table 7: Project DPM Construction Emissions
Scenario
Annual Average Construction Emissions
On-site DPM
(tons/year)
Off-site DPM1
(tons/year)
Unmitigated 0.1848 0.0041
Mitigated2 0.0615 0.0041
Notes:
1 The off-site emissions are estimated over all anticipated construction vehicle travel routes from within approximately 1,000 feet of the project site. 2 Mitigated DPM estimates shown above consider the use of Tier IV Interim engines for construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower.

Source: CalEEMod Output and Construction Health Risk Assessment Calculations; see Appendix B.

Estimation of Cancer Risks and Hazards
Cancer risks are estimated as the upper-bound incremental probability that an individual will develop cancer as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens over a specified exposure duration. The estimated risk is expressed as a probability. The cancer risk attributed to a chemical is calculated by multiplying the chemical intake or dose at the human exchange boundaries (e.g., lungs through inhalation) by the chemical-specific cancer potency factor (CPF).19 For example, a risk level of 10 in a million implies a likelihood (or risk) that up to 10 persons, out of one million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the levels of TACs over a specified duration of time. This risk would be an excess cancer risk that is in addition to any environmental cancer risk borne by a person not exposed to these air toxics.

The BAAQMD has developed a set of guidelines for estimating cancer risks resulting from exposure to TAC.20,21 These guidelines recommend the use of Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) software to identify the cancer risk associated with DPM exposure. Therefore, the HARP2 was applied to calculate the cancer risks resulted from the DPM generated from the construction and operations of the proposed project. The input options used are as follows:

Residential Receptors
• Analysis Type: Cancer Risk
• Receptor Type: Individual Resident
• Exposure Duration: User Defined (Tier 2)–3 Years, 3rd Trimester Start Age • Intake Rate Percentile: Risk Management Policy (RMP)–“Inhalation Only” • Selected: “Apply Molecular Weight Adjustment Factor” factor 19 A Cancer potency factor (CPF) is a parameter that arises during the quantitative risk assessment of chemicals or agents being evaluated as carcinogens. It is a plausible upper-bound estimate of the probability that an individual will develop cancer if exposed to a chemical for a lifetime of 70 years. 20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.

December. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permitmodeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed November 17, 2021. 21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. BAAQMD Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. December.

Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/facility-riskreduction/documents/baaqmd_hra_modeling_protocol-pdf.pdf?la=en. November 17, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 55 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx • Pathways to Evaluate: Inhalation Only
• Selected: “Apply fraction of time at residence to age bins less than 16 years” • Selected: “Apply fraction of time at residence to age bins greater than or equal to 16 years” • Selected: “Use Tier 2 breathing rates (L/kg-day)” factor • Selected: “Use Tier 2 fraction of time at residence” factor Daycare Receptors
• Analysis Type: Cancer Risk
• Receptor Type: Individual Resident
• Exposure Duration: User Defined (Tier 2)–3 Years, 2 years old Start Age • Intake Rate Percentile: 95th (High End)
• Selected: “Apply Molecular Weight Adjustment Factor” factor • Pathways to Evaluate: Inhalation Only
• Selected: “Apply fraction of time at residence to age bins less than 16 years” • Selected: “Apply fraction of time at residence to age bins greater than or equal to 16 years” • Selected: “Use Tier 2 breathing rates (L/kg-day)” factor • Selected: “Use Tier 2 fraction of time at residence” factor Elementary School Receptors
• Analysis Type: Cancer Risk
• Receptor Type: Individual Resident
• Exposure Duration: User Defined (Tier 2)–3 Years, 5 years old Start Age • Intake Rate Percentile: 95th (High End)
• Selected: “Apply Molecular Weight Adjustment Factor” factor • Pathways to Evaluate: Inhalation Only
• Selected: “Apply fraction of time at residence to age bins less than 16 years” • Selected: “Apply fraction of time at residence to age bins greater than or equal to 16 years” • Selected: “Use Tier 2 breathing rates (L/kg-day)” factor • Selected: “Use Tier 2 fraction of time at residence” factor • Selected: “Adjustment for workers or 8-hour chronic risk” with “Worker Adjustment Factor” as 1 and Exposure Frequency (days/year)” as 180.

Middle School Receptors
• Analysis Type: Cancer Risk
• Receptor Type: Individual Resident
• Exposure Duration: User Defined (Tier 2)–3 Years, 11 years old Start Age • Intake Rate Percentile: 95th (High End)
• Selected: “Apply Molecular Weight Adjustment Factor” factor • Pathways to Evaluate: Inhalation Only
• Selected: “Apply fraction of time at residence to age bins less than 16 years” • Selected: “Apply fraction of time at residence to age bins greater than or equal to 16 years” • Selected: “Use Tier 2 breathing rates (L/kg-day)” factor • Selected: “Use Tier 2 fraction of time at residence” factor • Selected: “Adjustment for workers or 8-hour chronic risk” with “Worker Adjustment Factor” as 1 and Exposure Frequency (days/year)” as 180.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 56 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Estimation of Non-Cancer Chronic Hazards
TACs can also cause chronic (long-term) effects related to non-cancer illnesses such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. Non-cancer health risks are conveyed in terms of the hazard index (HI), a ratio of the predicted concentration of the facility’s reported TAC emissions to a concentration considered acceptable to public health professionals. A significant risk is defined as an HI of 1 or greater. An HI of less than 1 indicates that no significant health risks are expected from the facility’s TAC emissions. The relationship for the non-cancer hazards of TACs is given by the following equation:

HI = Cann/REL
Where:

HI = Hazard Index: an expression of the potential for chronic non-cancer health risks Cann = Annual average TAC concentration (µg/m3
)
REL = Reference Exposure Level: the DPM concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated
Annual concentrations of DPM as predicted by the air dispersion model are used to estimate chronic non-cancer hazards. The OEHHA has defined a REL for DPM of 5 µg/m3 .

Estimation of Health Risks and Hazards from Project Construction To assess impacts to off-site sensitive receptors, receptor locations within the American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) model were identified at existing residences, parks, and daycares located within approximately ½-mile of the project boundary. As previously discussed, project construction is anticipated to start in September 2023 and conclude by July 2025 and would occur over two concurrent construction phases.

The Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR), among all previously identified sensitive receptors in the project vicinity, was found at a single-family residence located approximately 80 feet south of the project site. Table 8 presents a summary of the proposed project’s construction cancer risk, chronic non-cancer hazard, and annual PM2.5 concentration impacts at all identified receptor types prior to the application of any equipment mitigation. As discussed in Impacts III(a) and (b), General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-2a would be required to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction. It should be noted that inclusion of General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-2a only reduces PM2.5 total and not PM2.5 exhaust.

Table 8: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards during Project Construction—Unmitigated Impact Scenario1
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic Non-Cancer
Hazard Index2
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Risks and Hazards at the MIR: Daycare 0.41 <0.01 0.01
Risks and Hazards at the MIR:

Elementary School 0.14 <0.01 <0.01

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 57 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Impact Scenario1
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic Non-Cancer
Hazard Index2
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Risks and Hazards at the MIR:

Middle School 0.10 <0.01 <0.01
Risks and Hazards at the MIR: Residence 17.10 0.11 0.05 BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance 10 1 0.3
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? Yes No No
Notes:

MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor 1 The MIR is a single-family residence located approximately 80 feet south of the project site. 2 Chronic non-cancer hazard index was estimated by dividing the annual DPM concentration (as PM2.5 exhaust) by the REL of 5 µg/m3.

Source: Appendix B.

As shown above in Table 8, construction of the proposed project would exceed the applicable BAAQMD thresholds for cancer risk to a single-family residence approximately 80 feet south of the project site prior to the application of mitigation that is required by General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-2d. This represents a potentially significant construction TAC exposure impact. Therefore, application of General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-2d is required to reduce the impact during the construction period to below a level of significance.

As a planning-level document, the General Plan FEIR determined that individual projects that were included in the development of the City were not planned to the level of detail where pollution sources could be identified and emissions quantified. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR included MM

3.3-3d which requires the City to consult the BAAQMD to identify TAC sources and determine the need for and requirements of a Health Risk Assessment for proposed development. As detailed above, the Health Risk Assessment prepared for the proposed project determined that a requirement is necessary to meet the BAAQMD-established significance thresholds. As part of General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-3d, the project applicant and/or construction contractor shall provide documentation to the City of Richmond that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meet EPA or ARB Tier IV Interim off-road emissions standards. Table 9 shows the health risks and non-cancer hazard index at the residential MIR for construction with implementation of Tier IV Interim mitigation. As no other identified receptors would experience cancer risk or non-cancer hazard beyond BAAQMD significance thresholds, the residential MIR is the only receptor analyzed with mitigated emission results.

Table 9: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards during Project Construction—Unmitigated Impact Scenario
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic Non-Cancer
Hazard Index2
Annual PM2.5
Concentration (µg/m3)
Risks and Hazards at the MIR: Residence 5.72 <0.01 0.02 BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance 10 1 0.3
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No No

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 58 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Impact Scenario
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic Non-Cancer
Hazard Index2
Annual PM2.5
Concentration (µg/m3)
Notes:

MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
1 The MIR is a single-family residence located approximately 80 feet south of the project site. 2 Chronic non-cancer hazard index was estimated by dividing the annual DPM concentration (as PM2.5 exhaust)by the REL of 5 µg/m3.

Source: Appendix B.

As shown above in Table 9, the proposed project’s construction DPM emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s cancer risk, chronic non-cancer hazard index, and annual PM2.5 thresholds of significance at the MIR after incorporation of General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-2a and General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-3d. Therefore, the proposed project’s construction emissions would not result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors after the incorporation of mitigation measures that were adopted in connection with the certification of the General Plan FEIR.

Criterion 2: Cumulative Health Risk Assessment
The BAAQMD recommends assessing the potential cumulative impacts from sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of a project. For a project-level analysis, BAAQMD provides several tools for use in screening potential sources of TACs. The BAAQMD-provided tools used to assess the potential cumulative impacts from TACs are described below:
• Health Risks from Local Roadways. The BAAQMD pre-calculated concentrations and the associated potential cancer risks and PM2.5 concentration increases for each county within their jurisdiction for roadways that carry at least 30,000 average daily trips. For certain areas, the BAAQMD also included local roadways that meet BAAQMD’s “major roadway” criteria of 10,000 vehicles or 1,000 trucks per day. The latest available screening tool is in the form of a Geographic Information System (GIS) raster file. As the proposed project is located in a Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program area,22 the BAAQMD screening tool includes local roadways that meet BAAQMD’s “major roadway” criteria for the project area. • Freeway Screening Analysis Tool. The BAAQMD prepared a GIS tool that contains pre-estimated cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration increases for highways within the Bay Area. The nearest freeway to the project site is Interstate 80, approximately 1,650 feet east of the project site. • Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Screening Tools. The BAAQMD prepared a GIS tool23 with the location of permitted sources and provides a health risk calculator that estimates and refines screen-level cancer risk, a non-cancer health hazard index, and PM2.5 concentrations using emissions data from BAAQMD's permitting database.24 For each emissions source, the 22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2014 (includes updates as recent as 2018). “Community Air Risk Evaluation Program.” August 20. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/communityair-risk-evaluation-care-program. Accessed November 17, 2021. 23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2019. Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Website: https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65.

Accessed November 17, 2021. 24 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. Tools and Methodologies: BAAQMD Health Risk Calculator Beta 4.0.

Website https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. Accessed November 17, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 59 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx BAAQMD provides conservative estimates of cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations. Based on information from the GIS tool, two BAAQMD-permitted stationary sources exist within 1,000 feet of the project site.
• Rail Screening Tools. The BAAQMD prepared GIS tools that contain estimated cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations from railroad operations at any point within the Air Basin. One existing railway borders the project site’s southern boundary. No other railways are within 1,000 feet of the project site.

Cumulative Health Risk Assessment at the Maximum Impacted Receptor A cumulative Health Risk Assessment was performed that examined the cumulative impacts of the proposed project’s construction emissions and sources of TAC emissions within 1,000 feet of the proposed project.

The cumulative health risk results, including health risks from the existing stationary source, are summarized during project construction in Table 10. Cumulative health risk results shown therein are representative of the health risks to the MIR which would experience the highest concentration of pollutants.

Table 10: Summary of the Cumulative Health Impacts at the MIR during Construction Source Source Type
Distance
from Project
Site
(feet)
Distance
from
MIR(1)
(feet)
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
HI
PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Project
Mitigated Project
Construction
Diesel
Construction
Equipment
0 80 5.72 <0.01 0.02
Existing Stationary Sources (BAAQMD Facility Number)2
City of Richmond/Accounts
Payable (17297)
Generators 380 600 0.17 0.00 0.00
Contra Costa County
(14133)3
Generators 0 80 4.36 0.00 0.01
Existing Roadways
Existing Local Roadways 350 550 0.75 N/A 0.01
Existing Highways
Existing Highways 1,650 1,950 5.79 N/A 0.11
Existing Rail
Existing Railways 20 20 2.81 N/A <0.01
Cumulative Health Risks
Cumulative Total with
Mitigated Project
Construction

19.60 <0.01 0.15

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 60 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Source Source Type
Distance
from Project
Site
(feet)
Distance
from
MIR(1)
(feet)
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
HI
PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
BAAQMD’s Cumulative
Thresholds of
Significance
100 10 0.8
Applicable Threshold
Exceeded in Either
Scenario?
No No No
Notes:
1 The Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR) is a single-family residence approximately 80 feet south of the project site.
2 Assumes emissions remain constant with time.
3 For conservative assessment, generator located at same address as project site is assumed to not be removed as part of project.

N/A = no data available
Source: Appendix B.

As noted in Table 10, the cumulative impacts from the project construction and existing sources of TACs would be less than the BAAQMD’s cumulative thresholds of significance. Thus, the cumulative health risk impacts from project construction would be less than significant and not exceed those analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

Criterion 3: Operational Emissions
The proposed project would result in the development of a residential complex and would not generate substantial on-site sources of TACs during operation. As described in the Draft TIS, the proposed project is expected to generate 879 daily vehicle trips.25 The proposed project would primarily generate trips from a mix of residents and employees traveling to and from the project site, which would primarily consist of passenger vehicles. Because nearly all passenger vehicles are gasoline-fueled, the proposed project would not generate a significant amount of DPM emissions during operation; however, gasoline-fueled vehicles would still emit relatively small amounts of gasoline TACs such as benzene, isopentane, and toluene during project operation. Nonetheless, the potential cancer risks associated with non-diesel TACs emitted from gasoline vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin are substantially less than the potential cancer risks associated with DPM emissions26 and are therefore not included in this analysis. Furthermore, these emissions would be dispersed throughout the local roadway network and would not solely be generated at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in additional significant health impacts beyond those determined in the General Plan FEIR to nearby sensitive receptors during operation. 25 W-Trans. 2021. Draft Traffic Impact Study for the 100 38th Street Mixed Use Project. Accessed November 11, 2021. 26 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Oakland Railyard. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//railyard/hra/up_oak_hra.pdf?_ga=2.229617876.913681903.1594937953- 503090677.1594937953. Accessed November 17, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 61 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Criterion 4: Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Assessment
As discussed above under Impact III(b) and Impact III(c), the Draft TIS for the proposed project demonstrated that project operation would result in a net increase of approximately 879 daily vehicle trips, with a net increase of 74 trips in the AM peak-hour and a net increase of 85 trips during the PM peak-hour. As such, under Existing Plus Project conditions, the intersection to receive project-generated traffic that would experience the greatest traffic volumes would be the intersection of 37th Street and Macdonald Avenue with an estimated 1,855 vehicle trips during the PM peak-hour. This level of peak-hour vehicle trips would not substantially add to nearby intersection traffic volumes causing an exceedance in the BAAQMD screening thresholds of 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour through an intersection with limited vertical and/or horizontal mixing. Therefore, the proposed project is not reasonably expected to exceed the BAAQMD’s CO screening criteria and would have a less than significant impact related to localized CO hotspots, not exceeding the level of impact as analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

Summary
As described above, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during either construction or operations after the incorporation of General Plan FEIR MM 3.3-3d. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations than previously analyzed in the Richmond General Plan FEIR.
d) Odors
Would the project: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors or) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The Richmond General Plan 2030 FEIR determined that development proposed under full buildout of the General Plan would be subject to CEQA review, ensuring that specific projects would not result in the creation of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. As stated in the BAAQMD 2017 Air Quality Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the populations and is subjective. The BAAQMD does not have a recommended odor threshold for construction activities.

However, the BAAQMD recommends operational screening criteria that are based on the distance between receptors and types of sources known to generate odors. For projects within the screening distances, the BAAQMD has the following threshold for project operations:

An odor source with five or more confirmed complaints per year averaged over 3 years is considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the screening distance shown in Table 3-3 [of the BAAQMD’s guidance].

Two circumstances have the potential to cause odor impacts:

1. A source of odors is proposed to be located near existing or planned sensitive receptors, or

2. A sensitive receptor land use is proposed near an existing or planned source of odor.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 62 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Projects that would site an odor source or a receptor farther than the applicable screening distance, shown in Table 11 below, would not likely result in a new or more significant odor impact than those identified the General Plan FEIR.

Table 11: Odor Screening Distances
Land Use/Type of Operation Project Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Plant 2 miles
Wastewater Pumping Facilities 1 mile
Sanitary Landfill 2 miles
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 2 miles
Chemical Manufacturing 2 miles
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile
Rendering Plant 2 miles
Coffee Roaster 1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Confined Animal Facility/Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Green Waste and Recycling Operations 1 mile
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan.

April 19. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017- clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed April 11, 2021.

Project Construction
Diesel exhaust and ROGs would be emitted during construction of the proposed project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As such, construction odor impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, would not result in new or more severe impacts related to odors during project construction than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

Project Operation
Proposed Project as an Odor Generator
Land uses typically associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste disposal facilities, agricultural operations, or other operations listed in Table 11. The proposed project would

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 63 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx involve the development of residences whose operations could lead to odors from associated laundry cleaning, vehicle exhaust, outdoor cooking, and waste disposal. However, such odors generated by project operation would be small in quantity and duration and would not pose an objectionable odor impact to future and existing receptors.

Proposed Project as a Receptor
Using GoogleMaps, seven automobile body shops and one chemical manufacturing facility were identified within the associated screening distances, as provided in Table 11. Public records retrieved from the BAAQMD show that no odor complaints were filed for any of the locations during 2018 to 2021 by the time at which this analysis was prepared. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to odors during project construction than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

FEIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures
MM 3.3-2a Implement BAAQMD Best Management Practices During Construction All construction projects under the implementation of the General Plan shall incorporate the most recent Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Therefore, the BMPs, as recommended by the BAAQMD, shall be implemented during construction:
• All active construction areas shall be watered at least two times per day. • All exposed non-paved surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and access roads) shall be watered at least three times per day and/or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to exposed non-paved surfaces. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered and/or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. • All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 64 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx • The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. The City of Richmond and the construction contractor shall take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

MM 3.3-3d The City of Richmond shall consult with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to identify TAC sources and determine the need for and requirements of a Health Risk Assessment for proposed developments. As determined by the Health Risk Assessment prepared for the project based on BAAQMD cancer risk thresholds, the following requirement shall be implemented:

During construction activities, all off-road equipment with engines greater than 50 horsepower shall meet either United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards. The construction contractor shall maintain records concerning its efforts to comply with this requirement, including equipment lists. Off-road equipment descriptions and information may include but are not limited to equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number.

MM 3.14-3 The City shall continue to cooperate and coordinate with transit agencies and work with the community to promote and advocate for improved transit services and increased transit capacity to meet anticipated General Plan implementation and cumulative impacts for transit service, and seek grant funding opportunities to supplement available transit service.

Conclusion
There is no additional information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to air quality. The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding air quality impacts remain unchanged. No further analysis is required.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 65 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
IV. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitat
modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or United States
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive
natural community
identified in local or
regional plans, policies,
and regulations or by the
California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or United
States Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on State or federally
protected wetlands
(including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption,
or other means?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
d) Interfere substantially with
the movement of any
native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established
native resident or
migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the
use of wildlife nursery
sites?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 66 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
f) Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or State Habitat
Conservation Plan?
No impact No No No None
Field Survey
An FCS Biologist conducted a general biological survey of the project site on July 9, 2021. Weather conditions were sunny with an average temperature of 72°F (degrees Fahrenheit). The project site contains a vacant office building, parking lot, and ornamental landscaping and trees. The habitat present within the project site can be classified as Urban/Developed. This habitat type is characterized as areas that have been constructed upon or otherwise physically altered to an extent that natural vegetation is no longer supported and retains little or no soil substrate. Developed land is characterized by permanent or semi-permanent structures, pavement, or hardscape, and landscaped areas that often require irrigation.

Plant species observed consisted of ornamental trees including Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia) and Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) and ornamental shrubs such as creeping juniper bush (Juniperus horizontalis) and Indian hawthorn bush (Rhaphiolepis Indica) in planters around the vacant building.

Ruderal plants (weeds) such as bristly oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides), Jersey cudweed (Helichrysum luteoalbum), short pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and panicled willow herb (Epilobium brachycarpum), were observed growing in cracks within site and around periphery of the project site.

Wildlife species observed on-site consisted exclusively of avian species and included California gull (Larus californicus) and rock pigeon (Columba livia).

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 67 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx a) Special-status Species
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
The City primarily consists of urban development, including commercial, residential, and industrial land uses that do not provide habitat for any State or federally listed, or other special-status species.

While acknowledging that some undeveloped open space areas exist within the General Plan Update area, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts to special-status species would be less than significant. In reaching this conclusion, the General Plan FEIR notes that Policy CN1.1 in the General Plan requires proposed projects within the City to “require mitigation of impacts to sensitive species ensuring that a project does not contribute to the decline of the affected species populations in the region” as well as to “identify mitigations in coordination with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and other regulatory agencies.”27
In accordance with this guidance, an FCS Biologist compiled a list of threatened, endangered, and otherwise special-status species previously recorded within the project vicinity based on a search of the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database,28 the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the CNPS Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California for the Richmond, California, USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Maps and the eight surrounding quadrangles.29,30 The CNDDB Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 5) was used to determine the distance between the known occurrences of special-status species and the project site.31
Fifteen special-status plant species and 25 special-status wildlife species have been recorded within 5 miles of the project site (Exhibit 10). Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix C includes each species’ status, required habitat, and a summary analysis of the potential for each of these species to occur within the project site. However, due to developed state of the project site and the lack of suitable habitat, the majority of species evaluated in Tables 1 and 2 do not have potential to occur, aside from nesting birds and roosting bats. No special-status plants are expected to occur as well due to the lack of natural vegetation communities and lack of suitable substrate. 27 City of Richmond. 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030. Element 7 Conservation, Natural Resources and Open Space. Published April 25, 2012 28 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Website:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed January 19, 2021. 29 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. CNDDB RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for SpecialStatus Species. Website: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed July 19, 2021. 30 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021. California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. Website:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed July 19, 2021. 31 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 5). Website:
https://map.dfg.ca.gov/bios/. Accessed July 19, 2021.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

21210021 • 11/2021 | 10_CNDDB.mxd CITY OF RICHMOND
100 38TH STREET PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/CHECKLIST
Exhibit 10
CNDDB Special-Status
Species Occurrences (5-mile radius)
Source: Bing Street Imagery. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), July 2021. 6,400 3,200 0 6,400
Feet
Legend
Project Site
5-Mile Radius
Symbology
Plant (circular)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Multiple (circular)
CNDDB version 07/2021. Please Note:

The occurrences shown on this map represent the known locations of the species listed here as of the date of this version. There may be additional occurrences or additional species within this area which have not yet been surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of information in the CNDDB about a species or an area can never be used as proof that no special status species occur in an area.

Lasiurus cinereus
Bombus caliginosus
Scientific Name Common Name
hoary bat
obscure bumble bee
The following species (not shown on map) are also known to occur within this 5-mile radius area:

Scientific Name Common Name
Cooper's hawk
bent-flowered fiddleneck
Sacramento perch
pallid manzanita
short-eared owl
burrowing owl
Crotch bumble bee
western bumble bee
coastal bluff morning-glory
Point Reyes salty bird's-beak
soft salty bird's-beak
northern harrier
monarch - California overwintering population
western leatherwood
snowy egret
white-tailed kite
western pond turtle
tidewater goby
American peregrine falcon
Diablo helianthella
Loma Prieta hoita
Santa Cruz tarplant
Caspian tern
silver-haired bat
California black rail
Alameda whipsnake
Alameda song sparrow
San Pablo vole
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
Northern Maritime Chaparral
black-crowned night heron
big free-tailed bat
double-crested cormorant
California Ridgway's rail
California red-legged frog
salt-marsh harvest mouse
salt-marsh wandering shrew
California seablite
Suisun Marsh aster
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
yellow-headed blackbird
Accipiter cooperii
Amsinckia lunaris
Archoplites interruptus
Arctostaphylos pallida
Asio flammeus
Athene cunicularia
Bombus crotchii
Bombus occidentalis
Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola
Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre
Chloropyron molle ssp. molle
Circus hudsonius
Danaus plexippus pop. 1
Dirca occidentalis
Egretta thula
Elanus leucurus
Emys marmorata
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Falco peregrinus anatum
Helianthella castanea
Hoita strobilina
Holocarpha macradenia
Hydroprogne caspia
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
Melospiza melodia pusillula
Microtus californicus sanpabloensis
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
Northern Maritime Chaparral
Nycticorax nycticorax
Nyctinomops macrotis
Phalacrocorax auritus
Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
Rana draytonii
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
Suaeda californica
Symphyotrichum lentum
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
saline clover
fragrant fritillary
alkali milk-vetch
Trifolium hydrophilum
Fritillaria liliacea
Astragalus tener var. tener
Scientific Name Common Name

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 71 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Nesting Birds
The vacant building and ornamental trees present on-site may provide suitable nesting habitat for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and other nesting special-status birds covered by Fish and Game Code Section 3503, including Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). No active nests were observed during the field survey.

Construction activities could disturb nesting and breeding birds in trees and shrubs within and around the construction site. Potential impacts on special-status and migratory birds that could result from construction and operation of the proposed project include destruction of eggs or occupied nests, mortality of young, and abandonment of nests with eggs or young birds prior to fledging.

Therefore, in accordance with the MBTA, the applicant shall be required to conduct a preconstruction survey if construction activities occur during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) and to implement further avoidance and minimization measures, if an active protected bird nest is found. No action is necessary if no active nests are found during pre-construction surveys or if construction occurs during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31). The implementation of these uniformly applied MBTA measures would ensure compliance with the General Plan policies and would further ensure the protection of nesting birds, if present.

Roosting Bats
Although of no sign of bat activity was observed during the field survey, the existing vacant buildings may provide suitable roosting habitat for special-status bat species including pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). The existing building is expected to be partially demolished and renovated as part of the proposed project. Potential direct and indirect impacts could occur to any roosting bats inhabiting the project site due to removal of potential roosting habitat during project demolition. These activities could potentially subject bats to risk of death or injury, and they are likely to avoid using the area until such construction activities have dissipated or ceased. Relocation, in turn, could cause hunger or stress among individual bats by displacing them into adjacent territories belonging to other individuals. Fish and Game Code Section 2000 and 4150 state that it unlawful to take or possess a number of species, including bats, without a license or permit as required by Section 3007. Therefore, in accordance with the Fish and Game Code, the project applicant shall be required to conduct a pre-construction survey and shall implement further avoidance and minimization measures (if necessary) to ensure the protection of roosting bats, if present. The implementation of these uniformly applied Fish and Game Code measures would ensure compliance with General Plan policies and would further ensure the protection of roosting bats, if present.

Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to special-status species beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 72 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx b) Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
The General Plan FEIR determined that potential impacts to riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities would be less than significant. In reaching this conclusion, the General Plan FEIR noted that Policy CN1.1 in the General Plan requires proposed projects within the City to “Protect and restore creek corridors and riparian areas by restoring riparian habitat with appropriate vegetation and channel design; removing culverts and hardened channels where appropriate; improving creek access; avoiding future culverting or channelization of creeks; and ensuring appropriate and ongoing maintenance.”32
The project site is entirely developed and does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. The nearest sensitive habitat, coastal salt marsh, can be found approximately

1.4 miles to the south of the project site.33 Therefore, the development of the proposed project and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. c) Federally Protected Wetlands
Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The General Plan FEIR determined that potential impacts to wetlands would be less than significant.

In reaching this conclusion, the General Plan FEIR noted that Policy CN1.1 in the General Plan requires proposed projects within the City to “Protect wetlands from direct and indirect impacts of new and existing development and infrastructure. Ensure that direct and indirect impacts to wetland habitats are minimized by environmentally sensitive project siting and design.” The project site is entirely developed and does not contain on any State or federally protected wetlands. The nearest potential jurisdictional water body is located approximately 0.5 mile to the southeast, west of Interstate 80 (I-80).
34 Therefore, the development of the project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to wetlands and waters of the US beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
32 City of Richmond. 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030. Element 7 Conservation, Natural Resources and Open Space. Published April 25, 2012 33 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 5). Website:
https://map.dfg.ca.gov/bios/. Accessed July 19, 2021. 34 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS 5). Website:
https://map.dfg.ca.gov/bios/. Accessed July 19, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 73 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx d) Fish or Wildlife Movement
Would the project: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts related to fish or wildlife movement would be less than significant through compliance with General Plan Policy CN1.1. The General Plan FEIR also notes that “To facilitate this compliance, project applicants must retain a qualified Biologist to evaluate whether a project would potentially interfere with wildlife movement, migration, or breeding/nesting. If potential to affect wildlife movement, migration, or nesting is discovered, project applicants or their consulting biologists would be required to coordinate with the appropriate resource agency to ensure that impacts are either avoided, or mitigated to a less than significant level.” As confirmed through a site visit by a qualified Biologist, the project site is entirely developed and surrounded by urban development in all directions. The site does not contain any natural or manmade features that could serve a suitable corridor for wildlife movement, which precludes the possibility for impact. Therefore, the development t of the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to fish or wildlife movement corridors beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
e) Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances
Would the project: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts related to conflicts with local policies and ordinances would be less than significant through compliance with the City Code Chapter 10.08 (Tree Ordinance).

The project site contains several ornamental trees located in planters surrounding the vacant building on-site. The development of the project site would likely require the removal of all existing trees on-site. The City of Richmond Municipal Code, Chapter 10.08 Trimming, Pruning, Care, Planting, Removal and Moving of Trees, Shrubs or Plants prohibits trimming or removing trees in or on any “street, park, pleasure ground, boulevard, alley or public place” without first obtaining a permit from the Recreation and Parks Director of the City of Richmond or any of his or her authorized deputies. The project applicant would be required by law to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 10.08 by obtaining the necessary permits prior to trimming or removal of any trees related to development. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to place protective structures around any trees that would remain after construction to protect them from harm during construction of development projects.35 Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to local policies or ordinances beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
35 City of Richmond. Richmond, Chapter 10.08 Trimming, Pruning, Care, Planting, Removal and Moving of Trees, Shrubs or Plants.

Accessed July 20, 2021. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/richmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ARTXVZOSU_CH15.04ZOSURE_SERIES_600GEST_A RT15.04.613WAFILA_15.04.613.050RETR

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 74 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx f) Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Would the project: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan?
The General Plan FEIR noted that “No Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans have been designated within the City boundaries. The closest HCP/NCCP is the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, which is a joint venture between the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg and Contra Costa County. The City of Richmond is not a part of this plan.” As noted in the General Plan FEIR, the project site does lie within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) or any other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to adopted conservation plans beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

FEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

The following uniformly applied measures to ensure compliance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code will be included as conditions of approval for the proposed project, and shall be implemented consistent with General Plan Policy CN 1.1:

Nesting Birds
If any tree removal is necessary, then it shall occur outside the nesting season between September 1 through January 31, if feasible. If trees cannot be removed outside the nesting season, then pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to tree removal to verify the absence of active nests if the removal of any trees is scheduled between February 1 and August 31.

If a protected active nest is located during pre-construction surveys, construction activities shall be restricted as necessary to avoid disturbance and nest abandonment. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones (no ingress of personnel or equipment) or alteration of the construction schedule.

If the active nest belongs to State or federally listed species, then United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest.

A qualified Biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the active nest depending on the species. The applicant shall implement the buffer using environmentally sensitive area fencing, pin flags, and or yellow caution tape. The buffer zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 75 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Roosting Bats
A qualified Biologist shall conduct surveys for special-status bats during the appropriate time of day to maximize detectability to determine whether bat species are roosting near the work area no less than 7 days and no more than 14 days prior to beginning ground disturbance and/or construction. Survey methodology may include visual surveys of bats (e.g., observation of bats during foraging period), inspection for suitable habitat, bat sign (e.g., guano), or use of ultrasonic detectors (Anabat, etc.).

Visual surveys will include trees within 500 feet of project construction activities, where accessible. Not more than two weeks prior to building demolition, the applicant shall ensure that a qualified Biologist (i.e., one familiar with the identification of bats and signs of bats) survey building proposed for demolition for the presence of roosting bats or evidence of bats. If no roosting bats or evidence of bats are found in the structure, demolition may proceed. If the Biologist determines or presumes bats are present, the Biologist shall exclude the bats from suitable spaces by installing one-way exclusion devices. After the bats vacate the space, the Biologist shall close off the space to prevent recolonization. Building demolition shall only commence after the Biologist verifies 7 to 10 days later that the exclusion methods have successfully prevented bats from returning. To avoid impacts on nonvolant (i.e., nonflying) bats, the Biologist shall only conduct bat exclusion and eviction from May 1 through October 1. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young).

Conclusion
The construction of the proposed project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan FEIR and would not introduce any new or more severe impacts that would affect protected or regulated biological resources.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 76 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
V. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a
historical resource as
pursuant to Section
15064.5?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No MM 3.5-1
b) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section
15064.5?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No MM 3.5-2a
c) Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No MM 3.5-2b
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
d) Listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k), or
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No MM 3.5-1
e) A resource determined
by the lead agency, in its
discretion and
supported by
substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section
Not
addressed
No No No None

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 77 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the
significance of the
resource to a California
Native American tribe.

Setting
This section describes the existing cultural resources setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based, in part, on information provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Northwest Information Center (NWIC), National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historic Landmarks list, California Points of Historical Interest list, California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for the City of Richmond, the California Historical Resources Inventory, and a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) prepared by South Environmental. Non-confidential records search results, pedestrian survey photos, correspondence with the NAHC and Tribal representatives, and the HRE Report are included in Appendix C.

Northwest Information Center
A record search and literature review for the project site and its 0.5-mile radius was conducted on July 13, 2021, at the NWIC, located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, California. The purpose of this review was to access existing cultural resource survey reports, archaeological site records, historic aerial photographs, and historic maps and evaluate whether any previously documented prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, cultural landscapes, or other resources exist within or near the project area.

The results of the records search indicate that there are three recorded cultural resources within the

0.5-mile search radius, none of which are located within in the project site. In addition, 17 areaspecific survey reports are on file with the NWIC for the 0.5-mile search radius, but none are within the project site itself, suggesting that the project site has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. A records search map identifying the project boundaries and a 0.5-mile search radius along with relevant non-confidential records search results can be found in Appendix C.

Pedestrian Survey and Site Visit
On July 20, 2020, FCS Senior Archaeologist, Dr. Dana DePietro, conducted a pedestrian survey for unrecorded cultural resources at the project site. The survey covered the project site in its entirety, beginning in the northeast corner of the project site and moving west, using north–south transects spaced at standard 15-meter intervals whenever possible. The project site is entirely developed and hardscaped, consisting of a single multi-story medical administrative building situated in the

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 78 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx northwest corner of the project parcel. The rest of the property is entirely hardscaped, consisting of a wrap-around parking lot and limited landscaping elements. Visibility of native soils was therefore almost non-existent, ranging from 1-2 percent across the property, and only in highly disturbed landscaping elements running along the northern site boundary. Observed soils were largely composed of medium brown (Munsel 7YR 3/3) sandy soil with low clay content, interspersed with small (1 to 2 centimeter) stones primarily composed of schist.

Survey conditions were documented using digital photographs and field notes. During the survey, Dr.

DePietro examined all areas of the exposed ground surface for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., fire-affected rock, milling tools, flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, ceramics), soil discoloration and depressions that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, faunal and human osteological remains, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, standing exterior walls, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., glass, metal, ceramics). Particular attention was paid to the built environment and recording the administrative building, which appears to be more than 45 years in age.

All areas of the project site were closely inspected for culturally modified soils or other indicators of potential historic or prehistoric resources. No prehistoric cultural resources or raw materials commonly used in the manufacture of tools (e.g., obsidian, Franciscan chert) were observed. The administrative building was identified as being more than 45 years in age. The building was subsequently evaluated by architectural historian Samantha South of South Environmental in an HRE. The HRE concluded that none of the buildings meet the significance criteria to qualify on the CRHR or NRHP. Pedestrian Survey photographs and the South HRE can be found in Appendix C.

Native American Heritage Commission
On July 2, 2021, FCS contacted the NAHC to determine whether any sacred sites were located within the project site or its vicinity. A response was received on July 27, 2021, indicating that the Sacred Lands File (SLF) search produced a positive result for Native American cultural resources in the project area. The NAHC included a list of nine tribal representatives available for consultation. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) that may be affected by the proposed project are addressed, a letter containing project information was sent to each tribal representative on August 2, 2021. A second round of letters were sent to each tribal representative on October 15, 2021. No responses have been received to date.

NAHC correspondence and copies of the NAHC letters can be found in Appendix C. a) Historical Resources
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The General Plan FEIR found the development activities associated with the proposed Richmond General Plan Update could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historic resources as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on additional evaluation and MM 3-5.1, potential impacts to historic resources from implementation of the General Plan were mitigated to a less than significant level.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 79 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx In accordance with MM 3.5-1, an FCS Archaeologist conducted a records search at the NWIC. The results of the NWIC record search indicated that there are no previously known or recorded historical resources in the project site. There are three recorded resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project area, two of which are historic and one of which is prehistoric. The pedestrian survey identified a building on the project site that is more than 45 years in age and thus may qualify as a historical resource. A historical assessment of the existing structures on the project site concluded that none of the buildings meet the significance criteria to qualify on the CRHR or NRHP, and thus, should not be considered historic resources under CEQA. Therefore, there are no potential impacts to historical resources that were not identified in the General Plan FEIR, and no new information has been added.

While unlikely, subsurface construction activities always have the potential to damage or destroy previously undiscovered historic resources. Historic resources can include wood, stone, foundations, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, and other refuse. As required by the General Plan FEIR, the project applicant shall be required to implement uniformly applied mitigation measures consistent with General Plan FEIR MM 3.5-1 to ensure that any historic resources inadvertently uncovered during construction are evaluated and treated appropriately.
b) Archaeological Resources
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The General Plan Final EIR found that development activities associated with the proposed Richmond General Plan Update could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. With the implementation of MM

3.5-2a, this impact was determined to be less than significant.

The 2021 NWIC record search indicated that there are no previously recorded prehistoric resources within the project site. There is one prehistoric resource within a 0.5-mile radius of the project area.

In addition, there are several known and significant prehistoric archaeological sites within the City of Richmond. The pedestrian survey of the project site did not uncover any evidence of prehistoric or archaeological resources; however, this was largely because the site was entirely hardscaped, making an examination of subsurface soils impossible. Therefore, no additional information or impacts beyond those determined by the General Plan Final EIR were found. While FCS considers the potential for encountering archaeological resources during subsurface construction to be low, in accordance with MM 3.5-2a of the General Plan FEIR, the applicant shall be required to implement uniformly applied measures to ensure that any archaeological resources inadvertently uncovered during construction are evaluated and treated appropriately.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 80 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx c) Human Remains
Would the project: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
As noted in the pedestrian survey, the project site has been significantly disturbed and developed.

Therefore, the potential for the disturbance of any human remains is considered low. While it is highly unlikely that human remains exist within or near the project site, there is always a possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project, such as grading or trenching, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 must be followed. In accordance with MM 3.5-2b of the General Plan FEIR, the project applicant shall be required to implement uniformly applied measures in compliance with required guidelines and statutes, to ensure that any human remains inadvertently uncovered during construction are evaluated and treated appropriately.
d) Listed or Eligible Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? A review of the CRHR, local registers of historic resources, and NWIC record search results failed to identify any previously listed TCRs that may be adversely affected by the proposed project. The NAHC SLF did produce a positive result for TCRs within the project area. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential TCRs that may be affected by the proposed project are addressed, a letter containing project information was sent to each tribal representative on August 2, 2021. A second round of letters was sent to each tribal representative on October 15, 2021. No responses have been received to date. Tribal consultation efforts conducted by the City of Richmond pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 to identify additional significant TCRs meeting the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 is ongoing and will be completed prior to the proposed project being considered by the Planning Commission. e) Lead Agency Determined Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 81 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Tribal consultation efforts conducted by the City of Richmond pursuant to AB 52 to identify additional significant TCRs meeting the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 is ongoing and will be completed prior to the project being considered by the Planning Commission.

The following measures shall be included as conditions of approval for the project, and shall be implemented in accordance with General Plan MM 3.5-1, MM 3.5-2a and MM 3.5-2b.

FEIR Mitigation Measures
MM 3.5-1 Future projects shall implement the City’s Historic Structures Code to minimize impacts on historical resources by requiring thorough scrutiny for compliance with applicable legal requirements, including but not limited to compliance with the General Plan's historic resource protection policies, and compliance with State and federal historic resource protection laws, before any resource may be demolished and ensuring that alteration conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties MM 3.5-2a The City shall require that impacts on unique archaeological resources be mitigated to a less than significant level through methods identified in Public Resources Section 21083.2, including planning construction to avoid archaeological sites, deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements, capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building on the sites, or planning parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archaeological sites.

MM 3.5-2b The City shall require new development within the City to evaluate the potential for impacts on human remains. The City shall require that the treatment of human remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soils disturbing activity shall comply with applicable State and federal laws, including notification of the County Coroner and, in the event of the Coroner’s determination that the human remains are Native American remains, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

Measure to be Implemented in Compliance with General Plan FEIR MM 3.5-2a An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology should conduct a pedestrian survey following removal of asphalt and building demolition at the site, and prior to trenching and grading. This may be followed by regular periodic or “spot-check” archaeological monitoring as determined by the Archaeologist. In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and workers should avoid altering the materials until an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has evaluated the find. The project applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The qualified archaeologist shall make

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 82 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant cultural resources include, but are not limited to, stone, bone, glass, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project site shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and will be submitted to the City of Richmond, the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), and the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), as required.

Measure to be Implemented in Compliance with General Plan FEIR MM 3.5-2b In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. In this instance, once project-related earthmoving begins and if there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Contra Costa County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98, or

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendant, or the most likely descendant failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;
• The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Conclusion
Pending results from ongoing Native American consultation, the conclusions form the General Plan Final EIR remain unchanged.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 83 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
VI. Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the
most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State
Geologist for the
area or based on
other substantial
evidence of a known
fault? Refer to
Division of Mines
and Geology Special
Publication 42.

Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
ii) Strong seismic
ground shaking?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure,
including
liquefaction?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
iv) Landslides? Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
c) Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would
become unstable as a
result of the project,
and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 84 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
d) Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks
or alternative
wastewater disposal
systems where sewers
are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
f) Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
a) Earthquake Hazards
Would the project: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; (ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking; (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or (iv) Landslides.
i) Fault Rupture
The General Plan FEIR determined that surface fault rupture could occur within the Hayward Fault, which is a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and trends southeast to northwest through the City. The General Plan FEIR identified State regulations, such as the CBC, that would require seismic-resistant design standards are implemented in new development and local regulations, such as Municipal Code Section 6.12, which requires seismic retrofitting of older, unreinforced buildings within the City. The General Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of General Plan policies and seismic structural design standards contained in the 2019 CBC would ensure impacts to surface fault rupture would be less than significant.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 85 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx The closest active faults in the area are the Hayward, Hayward-Rodgers, Concord, and Green Valley Faults. The Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault is closest to the project site located approximately 1.29 miles northeast of the site. The Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault Zone has the potential to produce an earthquake with a moment magnitude of 7.58.
36,37 However, the project site is not located within a recognized Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, which precludes the potential for new impacts associated with surface fault rupture. As with all development within the City, the proposed project would comply with the 2019 CBC design standards to minimize adverse effects in the event of surface fault rupture. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to surface fault rupture beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. ii) Ground Shaking
The General Plan FEIR determined that strong ground shaking impacts could occur and areas located within or around the Hayward Fault. The General Plan FEIR concluded that seismic shaking impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of standard seismic structural design standards contained in the most recent CBC and implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions.

The seismicity of the site is governed by the activity of the Hayward, Hayward-Rodgers, and Concord Faults, although ground shaking from future earthquakes on other faults will also be felt at the site.

According to the Geotechnical Investigation, strong to very strong shaking could occur at the site during a large earthquake on one of the nearby faults.38 In addition, consistent with the General Plan FEIR, the proposed project would adhere to seismic design standards and General Plan policies.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to seismic ground shaking beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. iii) Ground Failure
The General Plan FEIR determined that areas near the San Francisco Bay shoreline and adjacent areas could be susceptible to liquefaction, but impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of standard seismic structural design standards contained in the 2019 CBC and General Plan policies.

Historically, ground surface displacements closely follow the trace of geologically young faults. The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, it is therefore concluded that the risk of fault offset at the site from a known active fault is very low.39
The majority of the soil underlying the site is sufficiently dense and/or cohesive to resist liquefaction; however, the geological analysis indicates there are thin layers of granular soils (primarily sand, silty 36 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2020. Quaternary Faults. Website:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/education/geologicmaps/qfaults.php. Accessed August 2, 2021. 37 Rockridge Geotechnical. 2020. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Regional Seismicity and Faulting, pages 4-5. 38 Rockridge Geotechnical. 2020. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Ground Shaking, page 7. 39 Rockridge Geotechnical. 2020. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Ground Surface Rupture, page 7.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 86 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx sand, and sandy silt) below a depth of about 11 feet below the existing ground surface (BGS) that are susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake. The geological analysis indicates that the nonliquefiable soil overlaying the potentially liquefiable soil layers at the project site is sufficiently thick and the uppermost potentially liquefiable layers are sufficiently thin such that the potential for the subsurface manifestations of liquefaction is low.40
The proposed project is located in Zone IV –liquefaction potential zone unknown. Although the liquefaction potential is unknown, the General Plan FEIR indicates that liquefaction occurs along creeks and within the Bay Plain area. The nearest creek is Wildcat Creek, located approximately 1.9 miles east of the project site. However, as part of the City’s standard practice, the proposed project would be required to adhere to seismic design standards and General Plan policies, which the General Plan concluded would be sufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to seismically related ground failure beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. iv) Landslides
The General Plan FEIR identified previous areas in the City that have experienced landslides: the El Sobrante Valley, Point Richmond area, and the Berkeley Hills. The General Plan FEIR determined that earthquake induced landslides could occur in areas where landslides previously occurred and on slopes greater than 15 percent, but impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of standard seismic structural design standards contained in the most recent CBC and General Plan policies.

The project site has a low potential for landslides to occur because the site is relatively flat with no slopes over 15 percent and is located within a highly urbanized area with no exposed, steep slopes susceptible to landslides.41 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to seismically induced landslides beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
b) Erosion
Would the project: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The General Plan FEIR determined that erosion of topsoil could occur in sloped upland areas, during construction activity, and in areas with exposed, non-vegetated slopes. However, the General Plan FEIR determined that implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and associated Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and General Plan policies, would prevent substantial erosion or loss of topsoil and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would be required to implement requirements contained in Municipal Code Chapter 12.44, Excavation, Grading and Construction, which would prevent substantial erosion or 40 Rockridge Geotechnical. 2020. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Liquefaction and Associated Hazards, pages 8-9. 41 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2020. National Cooperative Soil Survey – Web Soil Survey. Website:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed August 3, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 87 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx loss of topsoil through the implementation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan during construction activity.42 In addition, in compliance with General Plan policies, the proposed project would implement construction and operational standards contained in the City’s NPDES permit and SWPPP that would further prevent substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to erosion of topsoil beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
c) Unstable Soils or Geologic Units
Would the project: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landsliding, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? The General Plan FEIR disclosed that impacts related to unstable geologic units could occur throughout the City including subsidence, landslides, and liquefaction. However, the General Plan FEIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies would reduce impacts related to unstable soils or geologic units to a less than significant level.

Historically, ground surface displacements closely follow the trace of geologically young faults. The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, it is therefore concluded that the risk of fault offset at the site from a known active fault is very low.

Lateral spreading occurs when a continuous layer of soil liquefies at depth and the soil layers above move toward an unsupported face, such as a shoreline slope, or in the direction of a regional slope or gradient. Considering the potentially liquefiable soil layers are discontinuous, the geotechnical analysis concludes the potential for lateral spreading to occur at the project site is low.43 Consistent with the General Plan FEIR, the proposed project would be required to adhere to seismic design standards and General Plan policies which would reduce impacts to unstable soils or geologic units. Implementation of the proposed project would reuse the existing building and would reduce the amount of development that would require ground disturbance. The construction of the proposed adjoining Building B adjacent to the existing building would require ground disturbance; however, site does not contain loose saturated, sandy soils. This condition precludes the likelihood of construction activity being on unstable or unsuitable land for development. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to unstable soils or geologic units beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. d) Expansive Soils
Would the project: Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
42 City of Richmond. 2021. City of Richmond Municipal Code – Chapter 12.44 – Excavation, Grading, and Earthwork Construction. 43 Rockridge Geotechnical. 2020. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Liquefaction and Associated Hazards, page 9.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 88 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx The General Plan FEIR determined that expansive soils could occur in areas of the City as expansive soil is prevalent in the Bay Plain area. However, implementation of General Plan policies would ensure modern building techniques are implemented, such as removal of weak soils and replacement with engineered fill consistent with General Plan Policy SN1.1, 44 regarding Geologic and
Seismic Safety, which would regulate land use and apply development standards and construction practices to reduce the risk to humans and property in the event of an earthquake or other geological event. Thus, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation performed by Rockridge Geotechnical concludes nearsurface soil at the project site is highly expansive due to highly expansive near-surface soil with plasticity indices ranging from 31 to 33 found in close proximity to the project site.45 Expansive nearsurface soil is subject to volume changes during seasonal fluctuations in moisture content. These volume changes can cause movement and cracking of foundations, slabs, and pavements. Therefore, foundations and slabs should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of the expansive clay.

These effects can be mitigated by moisture-conditioning the expansive soil below slabs, providing non-expansive soil blow slabs, and either supporting foundations below the zone of severe moisture change or providing a stiff, shallow foundation that can limit deformation of the superstructure as the underlying soil shrinks and swells. The City’s standard plan check process will ensure that these recommendations are reflected in the grading and building plans.

To address the potential effect of highly expansive, near-surface soil on floor slabs for the proposed building and new exterior concrete flatwork associated with the new development, the consulting engineer preliminarily recommended the upper 18 inches of soil subgrade beneath slab-on-grade floors and the upper eight inches of soil subgrade beneath exterior concrete flatwork consist of nonexpansive fill. For slab-on-grade floors, the 12 inches of non-expansive fill should be measured from the bottom of the capillary moisture break. For exterior concrete flatwork, the upper 4 inches of the select fill should consist of Class 2 aggregate base. The 12 inches of non-expansive fill may be omitted if the building is supported on a mat foundation that is at least 18 inches thick; however, a 2- to 3-inch-thick unreinforced concrete (“rat”) slab or four inches of compacted Class 2 aggregate base should be placed on the mat subgrade to prevent moisture changes in the underlying soil during mat construction. The City’s standard plan check process will ensure that these recommendations are reflected in the grading and building plans.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey, the project site does not contain expansive soils that could experience shrink and swell potential during times of precipitation leading to cracked or damaged building foundations.46 Consistent with the General Plan FEIR, the proposed project would adhere to General Plan policies requiring conformance with State regulations, such as the 2019 CBC. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to expansive soils beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
44 City of Richmond. 2011. Richmond General Plan 2030 EIR. Page 3.7-23. 45 Rockridge Geotechnical. 2020. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Subsurface Conditions, page 3. 46 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2020. National Cooperative Soil Survey – Web Soil Survey. Website:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed August 3, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 89 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx e) Septic Tanks
Would the project: Have soils incapable of supporting the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available? The General Plan FEIR determined that the City would contain sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve future buildout and implementation of General Plan policies would ensure no impacts would occur related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The General Plan FEIR noted that there would be no impacts related to soils supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because wastewater is conveyed and treated within the City’s wastewater collection system. As a result, this potential impact would not be relevant in Richmond and no additional analysis was required.

The proposed project would connect to an existing wastewater line to the project site and, therefore, would not include the use of alternative wastewater disposal systems. As stated in the Project Description, the project would utilize the existing water and sanitary sewer lines in Bissell Avenue and those in 39th Street, which extend through the site. This condition precludes the potential for new impacts associated with the use of septic tanks. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to soils capable of supporting septic tanks beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. f) Destruction of Paleontological Resource or Unique Geologic Feature Would the project: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The General Plan FEIR determined that development activities associated with General Plan buildout could directly or indirectly destroy a paleontological resource or a unique geologic feature. This is due to sediment and rock formations underlying the City of Richmond are known to be rich in subsurface paleontological resources. However, through implementation of General Plan policies and mitigation measures for areas susceptible to destruction of paleontological resources, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

The proposed project is not located in an area with paleontological resources or unique geologic features. This condition precludes the possibility of destroying a paleontological resource and therefore, no impact would occur.

FEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
There is no additional information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to geology and soils. The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding land use and planning remain unchanged. No further analysis is required.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 90 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly,
that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No MM 3.6-1a,
MM 3.6-1b
through
MM 3.6-1q
b) Conflict with any
applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted
for the purpose of
reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No MM 3.3-1,
MM 3.3-2,
and
MM 3.6-1
c) Result in potentially
significant
environmental impact
due to wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during
project construction or
operation?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No none
d) Conflict with or obstruct
a State or local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
N/A No No No none
a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The General Plan FEIR determined that implementation of BAAQMD BMPs, as well as General Plan Policies (EC2.1, EC2.2, and EC4.3), Actions (EC3.E, EC4.G, and EC4.H), and MM 3.6-1a, would ensure that construction emissions of GHGs would be less than significant. The General Plan FEIR also stated that future development under the proposed General Plan would be subject to review to determine construction climate change impacts in accordance with CEQA.

However, the General Plan FEIR concludes that even with the implementation of General Plan Policies (EC1.1 through EC1.2, EC2.1 through EC2.7, EC3.1 through EC3.5, EC4.1 through EC4.5, EC5.1

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 91 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx through EC5.3, EC6.1 through EC6.3) and Actions (EC1.A through EC1.C, EC2.A through EC2.K, EC3.A through EC3.H, EC4.A through EC4.I, EC5.A through EC5.C, EC6.A through EC6.F), and all feasible mitigation measures (MM 3.6-1b through MM 3.6-1o), the impacts of operational emissions would remain uncertain and, therefore, be considered significant and unavoidable. Nonetheless, upon certification of the General Plan FEIR, the City added FEIR MMs 3.6-1p and 3.6-1q and ultimately concluded that incorporation of identified mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant levels for individual development projects.

Both construction and operational activities have the potential to generate GHG emissions. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during temporary (short-term) construction activities such as site preparation and grading, running of construction equipment engines, movement of on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, hauling materials to and from the project site, asphalt paving, and construction worker, vendor, and haul truck motor vehicle trips.

Long-term, operational GHG emissions would result from project-generated vehicular traffic, operation of any landscaping equipment, off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the proposed project, the energy required to convey water to and wastewater from the project site, and the emissions associated with the hauling, and disposal of solid waste from the project site.

The 2017 BAAQMD Thresholds contain the following for thresholds GHGs:

For land use development projects (including residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities), the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e); or

4.6 metric tons CO2e/service population/year (residents + employees).

It should be noted that the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance was established based on meeting the 2020 GHG targets set forth in the AB 32 Scoping Plan. For developments that would occur beyond 2020, the service population threshold of significance was adjusted to a “substantial progress” threshold that was calculated based on the SB 32 target of 40 percent below 1990 levels and the forecasted 2030 service population.

To determine significance, the proposed project’s GHG emissions are assessed against the 2020 BAAQMD bright line threshold of 1,100 metric tons (MT) CO2e/year and the projected 2030 bright line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year.

Short-term Construction Impacts
The proposed project would emit GHG emissions during construction from the off-road equipment, worker vehicles, and any hauling that may occur. General Plan FEIR MM 3.6-1a requires that all construction projects shall incorporate the most recent BAAQMD-recommended BMPs to reduce GHG emissions, including using alternative fueled construction vehicles/equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet; using local building materials of at least 10 percent, and recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. The BAAQMD does not presently provide a construction-related GHG emission threshold but recommends that constructiongenerated GHG emissions be quantified and disclosed. The BAAQMD also recommends that lead

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 92 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx agencies (in this case, the City of Richmond) make a determination of the level of significance of construction-generated GHG emissions.

While implementation of General Plan FEIR MM 3.6-1a would reduce GHG emissions during construction, potential emission reductions achieved through implementation of MM 3.6-1a could not be quantified with sufficient certainty. Therefore, the GHG emission estimates contained herein do not consider implementation of MM 3.6-1a and therefore represent a conservative assessment of project impacts. Total GHG emissions generated throughout project construction are presented in Table 12. In the absence of a construction emission threshold, construction GHG emissions are amortized over the expected lifetime of the proposed project (30 years). The proposed project’s amortized construction GHG emissions are then added to the proposed project’s operational GHG emissions in Table 13.

Table 12: Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Phase MT CO2e per year
Demolition 53
Building A Building Construction 572
Building A Architectural Coating 5
Building B Site Preparation 10
Building B Grading 71
Building B Building Construction 401
Building B Paving 16
Building B Architectural Coating 4
Total Construction Emissions 1,132
Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years1 38
Notes:

MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 1 Construction GHG emissions are amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the proposed project.

Source: CalEEMod Output (Appendix B).

Long-term Operational Impacts
Operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0 and are shown in Table 13. The proposed project was analyzed assuming full buildout in the year 2025. The estimated total annual project-generation emissions, including operational emissions and amortized construction emissions, were compared with the BAAQMD’s bright line threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year to determine significance at project buildout in the year 2025. The estimated total annual GHG emissions generated by the proposed project in the year 2030 were compared with the applicable significance threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year. It should be noted that the emissions estimates contained herein represent a conservative assessment of project impacts as the existing land use’s operational emissions are not considered.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 93 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Table 13: Operational GHG Emissions
Emission Source
Year 2025 Total Emissions (MT
CO2e per year)
Year 2030 Total Emissions (MT
CO2e per year)
Area 2 2
Energy 64 58
Mobile (Vehicles) 415 361
Waste 26 26
Water 19 18
Total Operational Emissions 526 465
Amortized Construction Emissions1 38 38
Total Project Emissions 564 503
Applicable Significance Threshold
(MT CO2e/year) 1,100 660
Does project exceed threshold? No No
Notes:

MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 1 Construction GHG emissions are amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the proposed project.

Source: CalEEMod Output (Appendix B).

As shown in Table 13, the proposed project would generate approximately 564 MT CO2e/year in the year 2025 and 503 MT CO2e/year in the year 2030 in terms of total (amortized construction plus operational) project GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e/year at project buildout or the adjusted significance threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year for the 2030 GHG emissions. This represents a less than significant impact, so that the proposed project would not add to or increase the level of impact previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

Summary
As addressed above, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would be below the significance thresholds and would have a less than significant impact. In addition, the proposed project would be required to implement General Plan FEIR MM 3.6-1a, which requires all construction projects to incorporate the most recent BAAQMD-recommended BMPs to reduce construction GHG emissions.

Furthermore, General Plan FEIR MM 3.6-1b through 3.6-1q provide feasible measures to reduce operational GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG impacts would be less than significant after incorporation of identified mitigation adopted in connection with the General Plan FEIR, and the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to GHG emissions during project operation than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 94 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx b) Greenhouse Gases Emissions Reduction Plan Conflict
Would the project: Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The General Plan FEIR evaluated whether buildout of the General Plan would conflict California’s AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The General Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of the specific measures contained in MM 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.6-1 and General Plan policies would reduce this impact to less than significant.

As provided by BAAQMD’s 2017 Air Quality Guidelines:47
BAAQMD’s approach to developing a Threshold of Significance for GHG emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce Statewide GHG emissions needed to move us toward climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.

Thus, if a project is less than the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance for GHGs, it stands to reason that the proposed project would not substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce Statewide GHG emissions.

The following analysis also evaluates whether the proposed project would conflict with either the City of Richmond Climate Action Plan (CAP) or the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update.

City of Richmond Climate Action Plan
The City of Richmond adopted its CAP in October 2016.48 The City of Richmond CAP serves as a roadmap for how the City will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change on public health, infrastructure, ecosystems, and public spaces in the community.

The City of Richmond CAP supports the community’s goals and policies identified in the City’s General Plan 203049 and enables the City to implement strategies to fulfill the requirements of AB 32 and SB 375. The City of Richmond CAP provides goals, objectives, strategies, and associated implementing actions. The implementing actions demonstrate how the City plans to implement its 40 strategies, and in turn, meet its objectives and goals. The majority of the 449 implementing actions apply to government agencies and not to individual development; therefore, project compliance is assessed by evaluating the proposed project’s consistency with the applicable goals and implementing actions of the City’s CAP.
47 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Website:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed November 17, 2021. 48 City of Richmond. 2016. Climate Action Plan. October. Website: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3313/Climate-Action-Plan. Accessed November 17, 2021. 49 City of Richmond. 2012. Richmond General Plan 2030, Introduction. 2018. Website: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2608/GeneralPlan-2030. Accessed November 17, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 95 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Table 14: Consistency with the Richmond CAP
CAP Component Consistency
Goal

1. GHG Emissions Reduction: This goal is aimed
at reducing GHG emissions originating from the
community and from government operations in
order to achieve statewide targets and reduce
the societal and environmental risks associated
with climate change.

Consistent. The proposed project includes several design features that reduce the generation of GHG emissions,
such as a rooftop solar system, high-efficiency lighting, and net zero energy targets. Furthermore, as discussed under Impact VII(a), Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed
project would be required to implement relevant General Plan FEIR mitigation, such as MM 3.6-1, and the proposed project’s generation of GHG emissions would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with the first goal of the City’s CAP.

2. Health and Resilient Community: This goal is
aimed at ensuring sustainable growth that
provides a healthy, resilient and equitable
environment for all. This goal includes preparing
for the impacts of climate change, providing
residents with access to walkable
neighborhoods and good jobs, providing safe,
affordable, and efficient homes, and integrating
green spaces in neighborhoods.

Consistent. The proposed project would include sidewalks along the project frontage with Bissell Avenue on the
project site. The proposed project is within 1.5 mile to the Richmond BART station, and it encourages the use of
transit. The other parts of this goal would not be applicable to the proposed project as a residential development.

Implementing Action
EE3.2. Work with the building department to
increase compliance of all building construction,
additions, and renovations with the State’s
Green Building Standards (CALGreen Code),
including Title 24, Part 6 energy standards.

Consistent. Although this is a measure related to the City’s process, the proposed project will comply with Title 24 and CALGreen codes.

TL2.5 Connect residential neighborhoods to
commercial centers with protected bike lanes
and paths (linked to Land Use).

Consistent. The proposed project would include sidewalks along the project frontage with Bissell Avenue. The
proposed project would also not preclude the
development of future bike lane and path features.

TL3.3. Require owners of property along the
shoreline to ensure maximum feasible public
access and to complete the Bay Trail as part of
any project approval process.

Consistent. While the proposed project is not immediately adjacent to the Bay Trail or the shoreline, it is within the vicinity of the trail, would encourage and facilitate use of the trail by future residents, and would not preclude access to the Bay Trail. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this measure.

TL5.7. BAAQMD, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, other regional partners and large
employers: improve Richmond Circular Shuttle
services linking BART and Amtrak stations to
commuter destinations, and extend service to
the planned ferry terminal and other nearby
transit hubs. Seek funding through BAAQMD
Shuttle and Rideshare program.

Not Applicable. This is a regional coordination measure that cannot be implemented by a project applicant.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 96 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx CAP Component Consistency
SW4.3. Require new development projects to
provide a construction plan prior to permit
approval that demonstrates how activities will
reduce waste to achieve the required diversion
rate. Require disposal receipts during the
building permit process to confirm proper
recycling and disposal, and prevent illegal
dumping.

Consistent. Although this is a measure related to the City’s approval process, the proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. The proposed
project would be consistent with this measure by
complying with all requirements during the permitting
process.

WA3.1. Ensure all new buildings and
renovations comply with CALGreen Green
Building Standards Code water efficiency and
conservation measures.

Consistent. This is a measure related to local enforcement of State regulations; however, the proposed project would achieve consistency through compliance with existing
regulations. The proposed project would implement
required green building strategies through existing
regulation that requires the proposed project to comply with various CALGreen requirements.

WA3.2. Update the City’s Landscape Design and
Development Guidelines to require water
efficient landscaping in all development
projects.

Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
comply with the latest adopted version of the City’s water efficient landscape ordinance.

Source of Measures: City of Richmond. 2016. Climate Action Plan. October. Website:
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3313/Climate-Action-Plan. Accessed August 12, 2021.

As shown in Table 14, the proposed project incorporates a number of GHG reduction features and would be consistent with the applicable goals and implementing actions identified by the City of Richmond CAP.

Senate Bill 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update addressing the SB 32 targets was adopted on December 14, 2017.50 Table 15 provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures. As shown in Table 15, many of the measures are not applicable to the proposed project, and the proposed project is consistent with strategies that are applicable.

Table 15: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency SB 350: 50 Percent Renewable Mandate. Utilities
subject to the legislation will be required to
increase their renewable energy mix from 33
percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030.

Not applicable. This measure would apply to utilities
and not to individual development projects. The
proposed project would purchase electricity from PG&E
subject to the SB 350 Renewable Mandate.
50 California Air Resource Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed November 18, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 97 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by 2030.

This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction from
2014 building energy usage compared to current
projected 2030 levels.

Not applicable. This measure applies to existing
buildings. New structures are required to comply with
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that are expected to increase in stringency over time. The proposed project
would comply with the applicable Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards in effect at the time building
permits are received.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This measure requires
fuel providers to meet an 18 percent reduction in
carbon content by 2030.

Not applicable. This is a Statewide measure that cannot be implemented by a project applicant or lead agency.

However, vehicles accessing the proposed residential
buildings at the project site would benefit from the
standards.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and
Fuels Scenario). Vehicle manufacturers will be
required to meet existing regulations mandated by
the LEV III and Heavy-Duty Vehicle programs. The
strategy includes a goal of having 4.2 million Zero
Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) on the road by 2030 and
increasing numbers of ZEV trucks and buses.

Not applicable. This measure is not applicable to the
proposed project; however, as stipulated by the 2019
CBC, Title 24, Part 11, Chapter 4, Section 4.106.4.2, new multi-family residential developments, such as the
proposed project, would be required to implement the
applicable provisions of Title 24, Part 6, Section 4.106.4 of the 2019 CBC to support future electric vehicle
supply equipment (EVSE).

Sustainable Freight Action Plan. The plan’s target is
to improve freight system efficiency 25 percent by
increasing the value of goods and services
produced from the freight sector, relative to the
amount of carbon that it produces by 2030. This
would be achieved by deploying over 100,000
freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero
emission operation and maximize near-zero
emission freight vehicles and equipment powered
by renewable energy by 2030.

Not Applicable. The proposed project is residential in
nature and would not have any major freight vehicles
operational.

Short-lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction
Strategy. The strategy requires the reduction of
SLCPs by 40 percent from 2013 levels by 2030 and
the reduction of black carbon by 50 percent from
2013 levels by 2030.

Consistent. Consistent with BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule
3, no wood-burning devices are proposed as part of the
proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project
would not include major sources of black carbon.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies.

Requires Regional Transportation Plans to include a
Sustainable Communities Strategy for reduction of
per capita VMT.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not include
the development of a Regional Transportation Plan.

Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. The Post 2020
Cap-and-Trade Program continues the existing
program for another 10 years. The Cap-and-Trade
Program applies to large industrial sources such as
power plants, refineries, and cement
manufacturers.

Not Applicable. The proposed project is not one
targeted by the cap-and-trade system regulations, and,
therefore, this measure does not apply to this proposed project. However, the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program indirectly affects people and entities who use
the products and services produced by the regulated
industrial sources when increased cost of products or
services (such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 98 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. The ARB is
working in coordination with several other agencies
at the federal, State, and local levels, stakeholders,
and with the public, to develop measures as
outlined in the Scoping Plan Update and the
governor’s Executive Order B-30-15 to reduce GHG
emissions and to cultivate net carbon sequestration
potential for California’s natural and working land.

Not Applicable. The proposed project is a residential
development in a built-up urban area and would not be
considered natural or working lands.

Source of ARB 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measures: California Air Resource Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. Website: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.

Accessed November 18, 2021.

As shown in Table 15, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the reduction measures proposed in SB 32.

Summary
The proposed project is consistent with the City of Richmond CAP and would not conflict with the provisions of SB 32. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with any plans to reduce GHG emissions and the impact would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to conflicts with applicable GHG reduction plans than previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
c) Energy Use
Would the project: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The General Plan FEIR determined that implementation of General Plan 2030 Policies (CF1.4, CN5.1, CN5.2, EC3.1, and EC3.2) and Actions (CF1.F, CN5.A, CN5.C, EC3.A, and EC3.C) would reduce the potential for impact on energy. The General Plan FEIR concluded that adherence to existing regulations and the aforementioned policies and actions would ensure a less than significant impact associated with wasteful or unnecessary use of energy.

The General Plan FEIR did not evaluate impacts at the project level. Therefore, the following analysis provides an evaluation of potential project-level impacts with respect to energy use.

Construction
During construction, the proposed project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources. No natural gas would be utilized as part of construction. Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during site preparation, grading, paving, and building construction. The types of equipment could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 99 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx transportation equipment, including trucks, bulldozers, frontend loaders, forklifts, and cranes. Other equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven equipment such as pumps and other tools.

Based on CalEEMod estimations (Appendix B), construction-related vehicle trips and construction equipment usage would result in the consumption of an estimated 99,316 gallons of gasoline and diesel combined during the construction phase (Appendix B). The complete calculations of the construction energy consumptions estimates are included in Appendix B.

Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated. Construction trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for transport of demolished material and building construction material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB Emissions Factors model (EMFAC) mobile source emission database. The specific parameters used to estimate fuel usage are included in Appendix B. Under an unmitigated construction scenario, the proposed project would generate an estimated 596,273 VMT and consume a combined 26,962 gallons of gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during construction.

Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. In addition, given the cost of fuel, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction.

Other construction equipment such as office trailers could be used during project construction.

Single-wide mobile office trailers commonly used in construction staging areas generally range in size from 160 square feet to 720 square feet. A typical 720-square-foot office trailer would consume approximately 16,601-kilowatt hour (kWh) during the 23-month construction phase (Appendix B).

According to Ordinance 15.04.605.060 of the Richmond Municipal Code, the City has established permissible hours of construction that limit noise producing construction activity to weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. As on-site construction activities would be restricted to these hours, it is anticipated that the use of construction lighting would be minimal after construction activities end each day. Potential after-hours lighting and energy use would involve lighting for safety measures around the site. Due to the temporary nature of construction and the financial incentives for developers and contractors to use energy-consuming resources in an efficient manner, the construction phase of the proposed plan would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to construction energy consumption than previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

Operation
Electricity and Natural Gas
Building operations for the proposed project would involve energy consumption for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling, refrigeration, lighting, and

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 100 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx electronics as well as outdoor lighting. The proposed project includes several design features that reduce the generation of GHG emissions, such as a rooftop solar system and light-emitting diode (LED) lighting, to meet the proposed project’s net zero energy targets.

Based on CalEEMod estimations within the modeling output files used to estimate GHG emissions associated with the proposed project, operations would consume approximately 684,815 kWh of electricity per year (Appendix B). In accordance with Richmond’s Code of Ordinances 100.0(e).2.A,51 the proposed project would be required to include solar panels and use electricity as the sole fuel source (thus no natural gas). As such, Building B of the proposed project would be required to include a rooftop solar system of a minimum capacity of 5 kW PV system. The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Richmond’s CAP and the State’s Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Energy and water efficient design measures for the proposed project will include low flow plumbing fixtures and irrigation heads and a wastewater heat recovery system. Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. Compliance with Title 24 standards would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. Compliance with Title 24 standards would ensure that operational energy consumption would not result in the use of energy in a wasteful manner or inefficient manner.

Fuel
Operational energy would also be consumed during vehicle trips. Fuel consumption would be primarily related to vehicle use by visitors and employees. Based on the estimates contained in the CalEEMod output files (Appendix B), vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would result in 1.34 million VMT and consume an estimated 44,207 gallons of gasoline and diesel combined on an annual basis.52 The project site is located approximately 1,650 feet west of Interstate 80 (I-80) and approximately 3,850 feet north of Interstate 580 (I-580). The project site is also located approximately 5,860 feet southeast of the Richmond BART station, which provides access to the BART Orange and Red lines. As such, the proposed project would be in proximity to multiple regional routes of travel. The project site is located approximately 500 feet from the Macdonald Avenue and 39th Street bus stop that provides service to the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Routes 72M, 667, and 800. The existing transportation facilities in the area would provide future residents, employees, and patrons with access to public transportation, thus further reducing fuel consumption demand.

Moreover, the proposed project would include sidewalks along the project frontage with Bissel Avenue, facilitating pedestrian connectivity to adjacent land uses. For these reasons, transportation fuel consumption would not result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during long-term operations. Therefore, the 51 City of Richmond. Code of Ordinances. 2021. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/richmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ARTVIBURE_CH6.02BUCORI_6.02.030AMADDE.

Accessed December 1, 2021. 52 Based on the 1,131,420 annual VMT consistent with CalEEMod output (Appendix B) and an average fuel consumption determined using EMFAC2014 factors for Contra Costa County in the 2022 calendar. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2014/. Accessed November 17, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 101 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to operational energy consumption than previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

Summary
As addressed above, the proposed project’s impact on energy consumption would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
d) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Standards Consistency Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The General Plan FEIR discussed the compliance with State or local plan for renewable or energy efficiency in its Climate Change section. It stated that implementation of General Plan would comply with California Code of Regulations Title 24 California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. During the release of the General Plan FEIR, the City of Richmond was in the process of preparing a CAP. The following evaluates whether the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, including the City’s CAP.

Construction
The proposed project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels.

Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. The proposed project would be required to comply with these regulations. There are no renewable energy standards that would apply to construction of the proposed project. As a result, construction would not conflict with or obstruct any regulations adopted for the purposes of increasing the use of renewable energy. Furthermore, it is anticipated that construction of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to construction energy efficiency and use of fossil fuels or decreased use of renewable resources beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

Operation
The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by PG&E. In 2020, PG&E obtained 31 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources, while the remaining electricity was sourced from nuclear (43 percent), natural gas (16 percent), and large hydroelectric (10 percent).53 While PG&E’s 2020 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) reporting showed that only 31 percent of 53 Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2021. Delivering low-emission energy. https://www.pge.com/en_US/aboutpge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy-solutions.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_cleanenergy.

Accessed November 10, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 102 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx electricity sales sourced from eligible renewable sources, the RPS requirements apply to a 3-year average of utility provider electricity sourcing to allow for fluctuations in market demand and supply availability. Nonetheless, the proposed project’s electricity provider is required to meet the State’s 2020 objective of 33 percent and is making progress toward the State’s 2024 RPS target of 44 percent. The proposed project’s electricity demands would also be required to meet the State’s future objective of 60 percent electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. The proposed buildings would be designed in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings as applicable. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. The incorporation of the Title 24 standards into the design of the proposed project would ensure that the project would not result in the use of energy in a wasteful manner.

The City of Richmond CAP includes goals and implementing actions aimed at energy conservation.54 CAP measures that are applicable to the proposed project include:

EE3.2 Work with the building department to increase compliance of all building construction, additions, and renovations with the State’s Green Building Standards (CALGreen Code), including Title 24, Part 6 energy standards.

TL2.5 Connect residential neighborhoods to commercial centers with protected bike lanes and paths (linked to Land Use).

SW4.3 Require new development projects to provide a construction plan prior to permit approval that demonstrates how activities will reduce waste to achieve the required diversion rate. Require disposal receipts during the building permit process to confirm proper recycling and disposal, and prevent illegal dumping.

WA3.1 Ensure all new buildings and renovations comply with CALGreen Green Building Standards Code water efficiency and conservation measures.

WA3.2 Update the City’s Landscape Design and Development Guidelines to require water efficient landscaping in all development projects.

Many of the measures in the City’s CAP apply to government agencies and not to individual development projects. Nevertheless, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the applicable implementing actions in the CAP. Furthermore, the proposed project would include design features that would support of the energy conservation goals of the City’s CAP. The proposed project would include sidewalks along the project frontage with Bissell Ave, wastewater heat recovery system, indigenous plants, and photovoltaic systems atop Building A. 54 City of Richmond. 2016. Climate Action Plan. Website: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3313/Climate-Action-Plan. Accessed November 10, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 103 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Summary
As addressed above, the proposed project would comply with existing State energy standards and with energy conservation policies contained in the City of Richmond’s CAP. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

FEIR Mitigation Measures
MM 3.6-1a All construction projects shall incorporate the most recent Best Management Practices for Greenhouse Gas Emissions as indicated by the BAAQMD.

MM 3.6-1b All new development and all retrofits of single-family developments, multi-family developments of over 10 units, and all commercial/industrial remodels of over 10,000 square feet shall be required to exceed Title 24 standards by 20 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030. This mitigation measure enhances General Plan Action EC3.C.

MM 3.6-1c Require all new City-owned and operated facilities and 50 percent of all new development to generate at least 10 percent of their energy use from renewable sources. Enhances General Plan Action EC3.B.

MM 3.6-1d All new commercial and multi-family developments installing boilers shall be required to install energy efficient boilers such that they achieve a minimum 4.5 percent reduction in energy usage. The same reductions shall be required of all remodeled multi-family developments of over 10 units and all commercial/industrial remodels of over 10,000 square feet.

MM 3.6-1e Develop improved waste reduction and expanded recycling programs such that a 75 percent diversion rate is achieved by 2020 and an 85 percent diversion rate is achieved by 2030 for all non-construction waste streams. Potential measures could include: providing recycling containers in parks and public spaces; establishing computer reuse and recycling programs; enhancing recycling and green waste services for all residents; and providing locations for household hazardous wastes to be recycled. Enhances General Plan Actions EC3.D.

MM 3.6-1f Develop a program that requires all construction and demolition activities to evaluate energy use and waste and to reduce or mitigate construction-related impacts by 75 percent. Enhances General Plan Actions EC3.E.

MM 3.6-1i Implement Citywide car and bicycle sharing programs. Collaborate with service providers to identify potential sites for locating carshares.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 104 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx MM 3.6-1j Require new local serving mixed-use in residential areas to provide needed services and amenities close to where people live and work. Require new development and redevelopment projects to provide community amenities and uses that serve priority community needs. Enhances General Plan Policy EC4.1 and General Plan Actions EC4.A, EC4.B, and EC4.D.

MM 3.6-1k Require mixed-use development along transit-oriented corridors that attracts people and facilitates activity throughout the day. Prohibit isolated or gated communities in order to improve physical connectivity throughout the City, and remove barriers in existing gated areas. Maintain streets to ensure that neighborhoods and streets are safe and well used. Enhances General Plan Policy EC4.2 and Actions EC2.C, EC2.E, EC2.G, EC4.A, EC4.B, EC4.C and EC4.E
MM 3.6-1m All new street lighting and all remodeled or replaced street lighting shall consist of high-efficiency lamps that reduce energy consumption by a minimum of 16 percent.

MM 3.6-1n All new traffic lights and all replaced traffic lights shall consist of LED lights. This high-efficiency lighting would reduce emissions from traffic lights by 90 percent.

MM 3.6-1o Require new development to incorporate water-saving measures demonstrating a minimum reduction of 20 percent in water use over a similar project completed within the previous five years. This measure enhances General Plan Action EC3.F.

This measure would be enhanced by General Plan Action EC3.G.

MM 3.6-1p The City of Richmond shall adopt a Climate Action Plan within 18 months of the adoption of the General Plan Energy and Climate Change Element. The Climate Action Plan shall include the following pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b):
a) The quantification of greenhouse gas emissions, both existing (2005) and projected for 2020 and General Plan horizon year (2030). These inventories and projections shall be used in the forthcoming Climate Action Plan. b) The Climate Action Plan shall define reduction targets that are California State Assembly Bill (AB) 32 compliant and continue reducing emissions past 2020 in order to address cumulatively considerable impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. At a minimum, the Climate Action Plan shall set a target to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which is anticipated to be a reduction of 15 percent from 2005 levels.
c) The 2020 and 2030 Business As Usual (BAU) Inventories provide emissions by land use types and emission sectors based upon the anticipated changes and growth in land use within the General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Element, which fulfills the criteria of CEQA Guidelines 15183.5(b)(C). As such, the inventories shall provide quantities and context of the emissions that need to be reduced in order to achieve the reduction target. Reduction measures in the Climate Action Plan shall focus on reducing the emissions from the sectors and land use types identified in the 2020 and 2030 BAU inventories.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 105 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx d) The Climate Action Plan shall specify reduction measures or groups of reduction measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the AB 32 compliant reduction target. To implement the goals and policies in the General Plan Energy and Climate Change Element, the Climate Action Plan shall include adaptation strategies that focus on potential local impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise, increased risk of flooding, diminished water supplies, and public health. Broader sustainability measures may include the preservation of local water quality, air quality, open space, and biodiversity. In addition, the following reduction strategies shall be incorporated into the Climate Action Plan:
i. Require all new or renovated municipal buildings to seek California Green 2010 Tier 1 building standards or higher and require new development building design to be, at a minimum, compliant with California Green 2010 building standards.
ii. Require all municipal fleet purchases to be fuel efficient vehicles for their intended use, based on the fuel type, design, size, and cost efficiency. iii. Require new development projects to implement a construction plan that demonstrates how activities will reduce waste through recycling and/or salvaging of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris at a minimum of 50%.
e) In order to establish a mechanism to monitor the Climate Action Plan’s progress towards achieving the reduction targets and to require amendment if the Climate Action Plan is not achieving the reduction targets, the Climate Action Plan shall include an implementation chapter describing how the reduction measures are to be implemented, emissions monitored, and the Climate Action Plan updated. Emissions inventories shall be conducted at minimum intervals of five years in order to evaluate the progress of the Climate Action Plan. The Climate Action Plan shall be updated together with future General Plan Updates or as necessary to implement new statewide reduction thresholds. f) The Climate Action Plan, including all updates, is a project subject to public review and comment under the California Environmental Quality Act.

MM 3.6-1q The City will continue to work proactively with BAAQMD, ARB, and EPA to help these agencies enforce GHG prevention and control mandates within the City, and will work with the community to identify and advocate for GHG measures that are within the jurisdiction of these agencies and can and should be implemented to further reduce GHG from the City.

Conclusion
There is no additional information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to GHG emissions and energy consumption. The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding GHG and energy impacts remain unchanged. No further analysis is required.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 106 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
b) Create a significant
hazard to the public or
the environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset and
accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into
the environment?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
c) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile
of an existing or
proposed school?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
d) Be located on a site
which is included on a
list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to
Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create
a significant hazard to
the public or the
environment?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
e) For a project located
within an airport land
use plan or, where such
a plan has not been
adopted, within two
miles of a public airport
or public use airport,
would the project result
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 107 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for
people residing or
working in the project
area?
f) Impair implementation
of or physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No MM 3.14-6
g) Expose people or
structures, either
directly or indirectly to a
significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
a) Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The General Plan FEIR determined that trucking on highways and rail transport is the most common method of transporting hazardous substances and hazardous waste in and around the City of Richmond. I-80 and I-580 as well as major arterials such as Richmond Parkway and Cutting Boulevard are primary transportation facilities on which hazardous materials and wastes may legally be transported. Numerous federal, State, and local laws and regulations have been enacted to regulate the management of hazardous materials. It was concluded that hazardous materials impacts are considered significant if the proposed project would create a significant hazard to the public or environmental through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Potential risks associated with hazardous materials handling and storage would generally be limited to the immediate area where the materials would be located. However, the General Plan FEIR determined that compliance with existing State and local level regulations would minimize such risks. General Plan Policy CN 6.1 encourages the cleanup and reuse of contaminated sites to protect and environmental health. As a result, the General Plan would have a less than significant impact with respect to use, storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials.

The project site would be developed with two buildings, construction activities may include temporary use of hazardous materials and other substances. Disposal of hazardous waste or materials would be expected to occur throughout the construction period; however, hazardous

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 108 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx waste would be generated by the project site in limited quantities. The proposed project’s use would be a use anticipated in the General Plan and would not transport, use, or dispose of significant hazardous materials in amounts great than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. b) Risk of Upset
Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The General Plan FEIR determined that future development would include commercial, light industrial, and general industrial uses that could potentially expose workers or residents to hazardous materials due to an accidental release. However, the General Plan identifies policies designed to reduce the potential for accidental hazardous materials release. Compliance with these policies, in combination with federal, State, and local laws, would reduce the impact of the accidental release of hazardous material to a less than significant level.

According to the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) GeoTracker, the project site was Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup site. The health center building corresponds to GeoTracker T0601300543.
55 The cleanup status is completed, and the case was
closed as of 2006. A second LUST cleanup site is located approximately 0.2 mile east of the project site at 4040 Macdonald Avenue. This cleanup site corresponds to Richmond Gas and Mart (T0601394707),
56 and its status is completed, and the case closed as of 2008. As both LUST cleanup sites have been completed and closed, the contamination on and near the project site would not pose as a hazard to the public or to the environment.

Due to the nature of the proposed project, the presence of large quantities of hazardous substances would not be expected on the property during project operation. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would be consistent with goals, plans, and policies within the General Plan, and would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. c) Exposure of Schools to Hazardous Materials or Emissions Would the project: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The General Plan FEIR determined that compliance with federal, State, and General Plan policies would minimize potential adverse effects from handling hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.
55 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2021. Richmond Health Center (T0601300543). Website:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0601300543. Accessed August 12, 2021. 56 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2021. Richmond Gas and Mart (T0601394707). Website:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0601394707. Accessed August 12, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 109 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx The project site is located approximately 0.3 mile east of DeJean Middle School. Because the proposed project would result in the development of two residential buildings in compliance with all General Plan policies, and the previous LUST cleanup sites are completed and closed, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to the hazardous materials emissions near schools beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Furthermore, because of the distance, gradient, and development located between the project site and the nearest school, the potential for hazardous materials to migrate from the project site toward the school is minimal.

As such, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to the hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of an existing school, beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
d) Hazardous Materials Sites
Would the project: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The General Plan FEIR determined that redevelopment of vacant or previously developed lots could expose hazardous materials to neighboring properties and residents resulting from LUSTs. However, the General Plan FEIR concluded that remediation efforts would be conducted by regulatory agencies, such as the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and implementation of General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

As previously mentioned, there is a closed GeoTracker case (T0601300543) on-site that involved diesel in soil in 2006. The second closed GeoTracker case (T0601394707) located approximately 0.2- mile east of the project site involved gasoline in groundwater in 2008. Because both cleanup sites were declared complete by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, the contamination from both sites would not pose as a hazard to the public or to the environment. Furthermore, compliance with General Plan policies and cleanup recommendations would ensure the proposed project would not result in impacts greater than analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to hazardous materials sites beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
e) Airports
Would the project: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
According to the General Plan FEIR, there are no airports within the City, and the City is located outside of the 65 A-weighted decibel (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise impact area. As such, the project site is not located within any applicable Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP).

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 110 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx The project site is located over 10 miles south of San Rafael Airport, approximately 20 miles north from Oakland International Airport, and approximately 30 miles northeast from San Francisco International Airport. Because the project site is located greater than 2 miles from the nearest airport, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area with respect to conflicts with applicable ALUPs. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to public airports or private airstrips beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
f) Emergency Response and Evacuation
Would the project: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The General Plan FEIR determined that future development would impact emergency response routes due to increased traffic congestion. However, the General Plan FEIR noted that implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions would ensure emergency vehicle access would be accommodated. It was acknowledged that roadway congestion may increase due to population and job growth such that travel speeds may drop and impact emergency vehicle response. The General Plan FEIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions and MM

3.14-6, impacts to emergency response would be significant and unavoidable.

The project site would be required to comply with General Plan FEIR Policy SN3.1, Emergency and Disaster Preparedness, which requires all projects to comply with the City’s Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to public airports or private airstrips beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
g) Wildland Fires
Would the project: Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
The General Plan FEIR and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) determined that the project site is not located within a wildland fire hazard zone, and due to the lack of foliage and urbanized surroundings, is not subject to a significant fire hazard risk.57 The project site would be developed with two residential buildings. The risk of loss of property or life as a result of wildland or other similar fire hazards would not be expected to occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to wildfire beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
57 City of Richmond. 2019. Community Wildfire Protection Plan. November 8. Website:
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/51634/Draft-Richmond-CWPP-web-. Accessed August 13, 2021.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 111 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx FEIR Mitigation Measures
MM 3.14-6 The City will continue to support coordination among its departments and other agencies in planning for emergency access and response routes, and will periodically review and as appropriate update its emergency access and response route planning.

Conclusion
There is no additional information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding land use and planning remain unchanged. No further analysis is required.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 112 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water
quality standards or
waste discharge
requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or
ground water quality?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
b) Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies
or interfere
substantially with
groundwater recharge
such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater
management of the
basin?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
c) Substantially alter the
existing drainage
pattern of the site or
area, including through
the alteration of the
course of a stream or
river or through the
addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner
which would:

Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
(i) result in substantial
erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
(ii) substantially
increase the rate or
amount of surface
runoff in a manner
which would result
in flooding on- or
off-site;
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 113 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
(iii)create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing
or planned
stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
(iv)impede or redirect
flood flows?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
d) In flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of
pollutants due to
project inundation?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a
water quality control
plan or sustainable
groundwater
management plan?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
a) Water Quality
Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The General Plan FEIR determined that a combination of point and non-point source polluters impacts surface water quality in the City. New development anticipated by General Plan buildout would result in greater non-point sources (such as oils, landscaping chemicals, exhaust from cars, and sediments) of stormwater pollution that could degrade water quality. However, the General Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of General Plan policies and biannual evaluation of water quality pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 305(b) would ensure impacts to water quality standards would be less than significant and projects developed within the General Plan would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

The proposed project would redevelop the existing building (Building A) and construct a new building (Building B) adjacent to Building A. As described in the Project Description, new surfacing for the existing plaza and the new plazas, as well as hardscaping around the two buildings, would

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 114 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx utilize pervious paving to reduce the amount of runoff. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to prepare and comply with a Stormwater Control Plan, as outlined within City Municipal Code Chapter 12.22, which requires new development to minimize increases in non-point source pollution in stormwater and implement a SWPPP to prevent erosion during construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to water quality standard violation and degradation beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan. b) Groundwater
Would the project: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The General Plan FEIR determined that General Plan buildout could increase the amount of impervious surfaces and reduce groundwater recharge by limiting the area where precipitation could infiltrate. Furthermore, increased growth and development could also increase the amount of water used for potable water supplies and irrigation. As the City obtains it water supplies from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), which provides water from the Mokelumne River, no new groundwater wells are planned with General Plan buildout. Therefore, increase growth is not expected to result in increased groundwater use or lowering of groundwater tables. The General Plan FEIR concluded that General Plan Policies and Actions would further reduce the potential for impacts on reduced groundwater recharge. As a result, the General Plan FEIR determined that that the City would not need to expand its water supply source and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not include groundwater wells and would connect to existing potable water lines contained within Bissell Avenue and 39th Street. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to groundwater supplies beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
c) Drainage
Would the project: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; The General Plan FEIR determined that construction and development anticipated under buildout would alter drainage patterns and expose soils to wind and water erosion. The General Plan FEIR identified Policies and Actions that would reduce impacts on erosion such as, implementing construction BMPs, natural topography protection, and requiring that stormwater facilities are maintained. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR determined that impacts related to drainage pattern alteration resulting in erosion or sedimentation would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 115 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx The proposed project would be required to implement erosion and sedimentation control measures, such as a SWPPP, during construction and operation. As indicated in the Project Description, storm drainage would be collected in bioretention treatment areas before routing off the site through connections to existing storm drains in the parking lot and Bissell Avenue and 39th Street.

Additionally, hardscaping around the two buildings that would be constructed would utilize pervious paving to reduce the amount of runoff and groundcover vegetation would prevent additional erosion and siltation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to drainage pattern alteration with respect to erosion and sedimentation beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
The General Plan FEIR determined that increased impervious surfaces, insufficient flood flow capacity in restored/daylighted creeks, changes in slope, and more efficient routing of stormwater runoff could all increase the rate and amount of stormwater runoff with General Plan buildout.

Furthermore, if the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit is adopted, the General Plan FEIR noted that it would only limit increased stormwater runoff when discharge is to a drainage feature susceptible to erosion. Implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions would reduce impacts to flooding by requiring new development to provide sufficient stormwater facilities, the Capital Improvement Program to provide socially equitable infrastructure upgrades, and adequate maintenance of facilities. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts related to drainage pattern alteration resulting in downstream flooding would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies.

The project site currently has the West County Health Center building and paved lots and driveways.

The proposed project would reuse the existing health center, redevelop it, and then construct a second building adjacent to it. Extensive landscaping is proposed for the new plaza, the existing plaza, and the existing parking lots, as well around each building. Storm drainage would be collected in bioretention treatment areas before routing off the site through connections to existing storm drains in the parking lot and Bissell Avenue and 39th Street. The proposed project would be required to implement design standards and a Stormwater Control Plan, which includes a SWPPP, that would reduce stormwater generation during construction to the maximum extent practicable. Consistent with General Plan policies, the proposed project would include stormwater drainage collection and a bioretention basin on the project site that would detain and meter stormwater such that the proposed project would not generate stormwater volumes or rates greater than existing conditions.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to drainage pattern alteration with respect to flooding beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; The General Plan FEIR identified that the capacity of several storm drains and creeks could be exceeded, and existing flooding issues could be exacerbated. In addition, the General Plan FEIR

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 116 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx determined that development under buildout conditions could lead to increase pollutant loads in stormwater flows. The General Plan FEIR determined that implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions would reduce impacts to flooding and polluted runoff by requiring new development provide sufficient stormwater facilities and promoting sustainable infrastructure design that incorporates integrated watershed management techniques to prevent pollutants and non-point source runoff. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts related to exceedance of existing and planned stormwater capacity and additional source of polluted runoff would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions.

As previously mentioned, the project site currently has the West County Health Center building and paved lots and driveways. The proposed project would utilize a stormwater bioretention basin consistent with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program that would detain and meter stormwater such that the proposed project would not generate stormwater volumes or rates greater than existing conditions. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the Municipal Code, which includes implementation of a Stormwater Control Plan, which includes a SWPPP and the use of BMPs, which would further prevent pollutants from entering the stormwater drainage system. Compliance with General Plan policies would reduce stormwater generation and the addition of additional sources of polluted runoff during construction and operation to the maximum extent practicable. As a result, the proposed project would not result in additional stormwater release that was not anticipated in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to stormwater drainage capacity or polluted stormwater runoff beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. (iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
The General Plan FEIR determined that construction and development has the potential to substantially alter drainage patterns by changing the land cover, land slope, drainage pathways, and susceptibility of materials to erosive forces. It was also noted that development on steep slopes would increase the potential for erosion because bare surfaces on steep slopes are more susceptible to erosion, and cut and fill activities could lead to unstable slopes and enhanced erosion potential.

Increased impervious surfaces associated with development could also increase the rate and amount of stormwater runoff, further exacerbating the potential for creek bed and bank erosion. The General Plan FEIR determined that implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions would reduce impacts that may impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded that impacts related to flood flows would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions.

As previously described, the project site currently has the West County Health Center building and paved lots and driveways. The proposed project would utilize a stormwater bioretention basin consistent with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program and storm drainage would be collected in bioretention treatment areas before routing off the site through connections to existing storm drains in the parking lot and Bissell Avenue and 39th Street. Additionally, extensive landscaping is proposed for the new plaza, the existing plaza, and the existing parking lots, as well around each building. This would reduce the potential to redirect flood flows at the project site by preventing additional erosion and siltation. Hardscaping around the two buildings that would be constructed would also

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 117 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx utilize pervious paving to reduce the amount of runoff. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to redirecting flood flows beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
d) Risk of Pollutant Release Due to Inundation
Would the project: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The General Plan FEIR identified areas within the City that are located in 100-year flood hazard zone.

The General Plan FEIR determined that buildout of the General Plan would expose people, structures, and residences to risks from 100-year flood hazards. Additionally, the General Plan FEIR determined that the City is located within the dam failure inundation area of the San Pablo Reservoir Dam, but the EBMUD completed a seismic upgrade in 2010 that would reduce risk of dam failure. The General Plan FEIR concluded that western portions of the City of Richmond near the coastline would be subject to inundation by tsunami. However, implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions would minimize the risk to people, property, and the environment from a tsunami, seiche, or flood hazard. Therefore, impacts to a tsunami, seiche, or flood hazard would be less than significant with implementation of policies and actions contained in the General Plan.

The project site, and the City as a whole, are located within a dam failure inundation zone.58 As noted above, a seismic upgrade was performed on the San Pablo Reservoir Dam to reduce dam failure risks. The project site is located in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Zone X— ”Area of Minimal Flood Hazard.” 59 The project does not propose development within any existing 100-year flood hazard areas. This condition precludes the potential for new impacts associated with 100-year flood hazards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more serve impacts related to flooding due to a tsunami, seiche, or flood hazards beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.
e) Water Quality Control or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plans Consistency Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The General Plan FEIR determined that cumulative growth and development within Contra Costa County would be subject to the Construction General Permit, Municipal NPDES Permit (or Regional NPDES Permit, if adopted), Industrial General Permit (for regulated industries), and Recycled Water General Permit. These waste discharge requirements have been designed to be protective of water quality – both surface water and groundwater. Compliance with these permits, including the hydrograph modification standard, would reduce the potential for erosion and siltation, transport of pollutants in stormwater runoff to receiving waters, and ensure that the use of recycled water for landscaping does not present additional environmental risk. Compliance with these permits would ensure protection of surface water and groundwater quality through implementation of BMPs, pollutant source reductions, and operations and management practices. Relevant water quality standards, with which development 58 City of Richmond. 2011. Richmond General Plan EIR, page 3.9-34. 59 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Map Service Center Search by Address.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 118 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx would be required to comply through the RWQCB, are listed in the Basin Plan. As a result, compliance with the existing regulatory mechanisms, potential impacts related to water quality control or sustainable groundwater management plans would be reduced to less than significant.

The proposed project would be subject to the Construction General Permit, Municipal NPDES Permit, and Recycled Water General Permit. The proposed project would ensure that adequate drainage would be provided through the existing water and sanitary sewer lines as well as the bioretention treatment areas. As previously mentioned, the proposed project would be required to comply with the Municipal Code, which includes implementation of a Stormwater Control Plan, which includes a SWPPP and the use of BMPs, which would further prevent pollutants from entering the stormwater drainage system. Additionally, with adherence to General Plan policies for the City and from the County of Contra Costa, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to water quality plans or sustainable groundwater management plans beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR.

FEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
There is no additional information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to hydrology. The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding land use and planning remain unchanged. No further analysis is required.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 119 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
X. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an
established community?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact
due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted
for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
None
identified
No No No None
a) Division of an Established Community
Would the project: Physically divide an established community? The types of barriers or physical features that can divide a community include roads, freeways, railroads, transit lines, and open space that is not developed for recreational use. Roads can both connect or divide communities: entire sections of the City are physically connected to the rest of the City by little more than a roadway, while other sections are disconnected from the rest of the City by roadways. The General Plan FEIR concluded that the General Plan would be developed to include policies to restore its traditional compact neighborhoods: mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented communities that allow residents comfortably to access nearby schools, parks, and community facilities and improve the connectivity of neighborhoods. In addition, the General Plan incorporates a place-based land use approach and place-based system for streets and trails. Additionally, the General Plan’s place-based system tailors streets to priority modes of travel that complement the surrounding land use, street function, and desired neighborhood character. The approach also works with the system of parks and other General Plan elements to promote high-quality street and park design to influence the overall character and connectivity of public and private spaces throughout the City. The General Plan FEIR concluded that the General Plan has been designed as a cohesive plan to improve accessibility for all residents in existing and future neighborhoods. Consequently, the General Plan would not physically divide an existing established community, and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would reuse the existing building and build an adjacent 5-story building to construct a total of 135 affordable housing units. The project site is currently developed, and redevelopment would not divide an established community.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 120 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx As the project site is currently designated and zoned as “Public, Cultural, and Institutional” (PCI), the project requires a GPA to change the land use designation to Medium-Intensity Mixed-Use (Commercial Emphasis) and a zoning amendment to change the zoning to Mixed-Use, Commercial (CM-3). With the approval of the GPA and the zoning amendment, the proposed project would be consistent with the corresponding standards for development outlined in the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. As a result, the proposed project would not have any significant effects that either have not already been analyzed in the General Plan FEIR or that are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate.

Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. b) Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Would the project: Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The City’s Zoning Code, Chapter 15.04 of the City’s Municipal Code, is one of the primary means of implementing the General Plan. Adoption of the General Plan would require updating the Zoning Code to be consistent with policies pertaining to land use, density/intensity of development, design and development, resource conservation, public safety, and other pertinent topics. After the General Plan is adopted, the City would update the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the Plan. The General Plan includes new land use designations that would be reflected in the revised Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan FEIR concluded that the General Plan would not conflict with plans or policies that are designed to reduce environmental effects. With regard to other plans in the City, the General Plan FEIR concluded that the General Plan would not conflict with the Macdonald Avenue Revitalization Plan, Civic Center Master Plan, the Point Molate Reuse Plan, Shaping Our Future Plan, and the San Francisco Bay Plan; the General Plan allows development along the Bay and its shoreline, but also contains policies to protect the Bay. Furthermore, any substantive land use changes for the General Plan would be focused in the change areas, and public access to the Bay would not be limited and may be enhanced through implementation of the Plan. The General Plan FEIR concluded that while the General Plan is intended to increase the mixed-use character in the urban core of the City, depending on the specific location of certain uses that could be developed under the General Plan, potential incompatibilities could occur. To the extent that there are specific incompatibilities associated with noise, odor, light, or traffic, these concerns are addressed in the appropriate technical sections of the General Plan FEIR. However, based on the analysis of the General Plan, the General Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of the development strategy to integrate uses within core areas within the City would not result in substantial land use incompatibilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, the GPA and zoning amendment would change the project site’s land use designation from PCI to Medium-Intensity Mixed-Use (Commercial Emphasis) and its zoning from PCI to CM-3. The proposed project would meet the development standards of the CM-3 Zone with the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code § 65915). As described in the Project Description, because the proposed project would be a 100 percent affordable housing development, the proposed project is eligible for up to four incentives/concessions, unlimited waivers, and an

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 121 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx automatic parking reduction. The proposed project would develop a total of 135 housing units. To accommodate the density and configuration of the proposed project, the State Density Bonus Law would be necessary to waive the CM-3 height limitation and building length maximum. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance permits applicants to request such modifications through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

Furthermore, there is no applicable HCP or NCCP affecting the project site. Therefore, the proposed project does not have any significant effects on the environment that either have not already been analyzed in the General Plan FEIR or that are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate, therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. As a result, the proposed project would not have any significant effects on the environment that either have not already been analyzed in the General Plan FEIR or that are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. No further environmental analysis is required.

Noise Land Use Compatibility
For a discussion of the characteristics of noise refer to the Noise impact discussion in Section L, Noise, of this document.

General Plan EIR Impact Summary
The General Plan FEIR required implementation of the General Plan Policies and Actions, as well as General Plan Action SN4.1 through SN4.3, and SN4.A through SN4.C to help reduce potential noise land use compatibility impacts, especially related to locating noise-sensitive receptors near existing rail lines. However, while project-specific measures could reduce noise effects from rail operations at sensitive receptors, the City concluded that potential noise effects on sensitive receptors due to exposure to noise levels from nearby rail operations that exceed the established local standards may occur. As such, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would introduce new land uses to an existing ambient noise environment that is in conflict with the City’s established noise land use compatibility guidelines. For the proposed project, the closest comparable land use designation of the City’s land use compatibility guidelines is a multi-family residential land use. The following are the General Plan noise policies applicable to the land use designation of multi-family residential:
• Noise environments of up to 65 dBA Ldn are considered “normally acceptable” based upon the assumption that any building involved is of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
• Noise environments of 65 dBA to 70 dBA Ldn are “conditionally acceptable” where new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 122 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx • Noise environments of 70 dBA to 75 dBA Ldn are “normally unacceptable” where new construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. • Noise environments of 75 dBA Ldn and higher are “clearly unacceptable” where new construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

The proposed project would expose new noise-sensitive receptors to traffic and railroad noise sources. Potential impacts associated with these noise sources are discussed below.

Traffic Noise
According to Figure 3.10-4 of the General Plan FEIR, the project site is located outside of the 60 dBA Ldn noise contours of I-80 and outside of the 65 dBA Ldn noise contours of Macdonald Avenue.

However, to further document existing traffic noise conditions on the project site, traffic noise modeling has been conducted for traffic volumes on roadway segments adjacent to the project site.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate existing and future traffic noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. The daily traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for the project by W-Trans.60 The resultant noise levels were weighed and summed over a 24-hour period in order to determine the Ldn values. Table 16 shows a summary of the traffic noise levels for existing traffic noise levels without the project as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. 60 W-Trans. 2021. Traffic Impact Study for the 100 38th Street Mixed Use Project. October 26.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 123 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Table 16: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Summary
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline to 70
Ldn1 (feet)
Centerline to
65 Ldn (feet)
Centerline to
60 Ldn (feet)
Ldn (dBA) 50
feet from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
37th Street–Macdonald Avenue to Bissel
Avenue
7,700 < 50 < 50 54 59.02
37th Street–south of Bissel Avenue 8,600 < 50 < 50 57 59.5 Bissel Avenue–37th Street to 39th Street 1,900 < 50 < 50 < 50 53.5 39th Street–Macdonald Avenue to Bissel
Avenue
750 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.5
Notes:

ADT = Average Daily Traffic 1
Ldn = Day/Night average noise level. It is the time-varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). 2 Modeling results do not take into account mitigating features such as topography, vegetative screening, fencing, building design, or structure screening. Rather it assumes a worst-case scenario of having a direct line of site on flat terrain.

Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2021.

Based on the modeled traffic noise results, existing traffic noise level along the modeled roadway segment of Bissel Avenue adjacent to the project site is 53.5 dBA Ldn as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the nearest travel lane. These traffic noise levels are within the City’s “normally acceptable” land use compatibility threshold of below 65 dBA Ldn for new multi-family residential land use development. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the City’s noise land use compatibility policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to traffic noise levels conflicting with the City’s noise land use compatibility policies beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Impacts would be less than significant.

Railroad Noise
The ambient noise environment of the project site is dominated by noise from the adjacent BART rail line operations. As described in the General Plan FEIR, a typical commuter train passing produces a noise level of 80 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the tracks. Per the Federal Railway Administration, noise levels associated with trains are anticipated to attenuate/reduce at a rate of 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance.

The nearest outdoor active use space of the proposed project to the BART rail line is the proposed tot lot play area on the south end of Building B, over 150 feet from the nearest BART rail line. At this distance, unshielded BART train passing noise levels would attenuate to below 73 dBA Leq. As shown on Exhibit 9, the proposed project will include an 8-foot-high sound wall (callout No. 11 on the exhibit) that will shield this area from direct line of sight to the BART rail line. This sound wall would provide a minimum 10 dBA noise shielding reduction from BART rail line noise levels for this proposed play area. This would reduce BART train passing noise levels to below 63 dBA Leq as

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 124 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx measured in this play area. These noise levels, when averaged over a 24-hour period would be below 65 dBA Ldn which the City considers “normally acceptable” for new multi-family residential development. All other proposed outdoor active use areas are shielded from the BART rail line by the intervening residential structure and would similarly not be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City’s “normally acceptable” standard for new multi-family residential development.

The nearest façade of the proposed residential development would be located over 150 feet from the nearest BART rail line. At this distance, unshielded BART train passing noise levels would attenuate to below 73 dBA Leq. Even with multiple BART train passings per day, when averaged over a 24-hour period, these BART train passing noise levels would be within the range of 65 dBA to 70 dBA Ldn which the City considers to be “conditionally acceptable” for new multi-family residential land use development, and a detailed noise analysis is required to identify if needed noise insulation features should be included in the design.

As noted in the General Plan FEIR, under current construction building code requirements, noise levels inside residential buildings can be expected to be 30 dBA less than exterior noise levels with windows closed. Therefore, interior spaces of the proposed residences would be exposed noise levels of up to 43 dBA Leq during a BART train passing. The project will include alternate ventilation systems such as mechanical air conditioning which will allow windows to remain closed for prolonged periods of time, sufficiently reducing BART rail noise levels to meet the acceptable interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL (i.e., 73 dBA – 30 dBA = 43 dBA). Air conditioning units would give an occupant the option of controlling noise by keeping the windows shut. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the City’s adopted land use-noise compatibility guidelines and policy and would reduce BART railroad noise impacts to the proposed project to be less than significant.

Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to railroad (BART) noise levels conflicting with the City’s noise land use compatibility policies beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Impacts would be less than significant.

FEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
There is no additional information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to land use and planning. The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding land use and planning remain unchanged. No further analysis is required.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 125 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
XI. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that
would be of value to the
region and the residents
of the State?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local
general plan, specific
plan or other land use
plan?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
a, b) Loss of Minerals Resources of Statewide or Local Importance Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
The General Plan FEIR determined that there are three areas of land in the City of Richmond that classify as Mineral Resource Zone-2 (MRZ-2), which indicates the existence of a deposit that meets certain criteria for value and marketability.61 The State has also designated these areas as regionally significant sectors. Sector W-1 is located on the north end of the San Pablo-Potrero Hills Ridge.

Sector W-2 is located to the south of Sector W-1 on the San Pablo-Potrero Hills Ridge, and Sector W3 is located on the eastern slope on the San Pablo-Potrero Hills Ridge. With adherence to Sections 2761(a) and (b) and 2790 of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and General Plan mineral resource management policies, impacts related to the loss of mineral resources and locally important mineral resource recovery sites would be reduced to a less than significant level.

The proposed project is not located near any of the three sectors delineated in General Plan FEIR that classify as MRZ-2. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the City of Richmond Municipal Code Section 12.46, which regulates mining activities and requires conformance with 61 City of Richmond. Richmond General Plan 2030 Draft EIR. Page 3.7-15.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 126 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx applicable sections of SMARA.62 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region, and it would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

FEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

Conclusion
There is no additional information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to mineral resources. The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding land use and planning remain unchanged. No further analysis is required. 62 City of Richmond. 2020. City of Richmond Municipal Code – Chapter 12.46 – Surface Mining and Reclamation.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 127 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion in
General Plan
FEIR
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
General Plan
FEIR
Mitigation
Measures
XII. Noise
Would the project:
a) Generation of a
substantial temporary
or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the
project in excess of
standards established in
the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of
other agencies?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No MM 3.10-1
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise
levels?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No MM 3.10-1
c) For a project located
within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has
not been adopted,
within two miles of a
public airport or public
use airport, would the
project expose people
residing or working in
the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
Environmental Evaluation
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound.

Noise is typically generated by transportation, specific land uses, and ongoing human activity.

The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the dB. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowestsound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Environmental Checklist Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum 128 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. While a change of 5 dBA is considered to be the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments.

Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) was derived to relate noise to the sensitivity of humans, it gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for a number of various sound level metrics, including the day/night sound level (Ldn) and the CNEL, both of which represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night. In addition, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the average sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period and Lmax is the maximum instantaneous noise level occurring over a sample period.

Would the project result in:
a) Noise Levels in Excess of Adopted Standards
Would the project result in: Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Short-term Construction Impacts
The General Plan FEIR assumed that an increase of 5 dBA or greater over ambient noise levels is substantial and significant. In the noise analysis of the General Plan FEIR, the City found that the construction activities associated with the future land use changes under the proposed General Plan would continue exposure to urbanized noise sources. The analysis determined that with implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions SN4.1, SN4.B, SN4.C, and SN4.E, which emphasize the need to mitigate construction noise on a site-specific and project-specific basis, the temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels would be limited and the impact on sensitive receptors minimized. Therefore, with the implementation of General Plan policies and FEIR MM 3.10-1, construction-related noise and vibration impacts at the General Plan and cumulative level were mitigated to a less than significant level.

A significant impact would occur if noise generated by construction activities exceeds 75 dBA Lmax on weekdays (from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), or 60 dBA Lmax on weekends and holidays (from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.) as measured at any affected single-family residential property. Additionally, a significant impact would occur if construction activities do not comply with Article 15.04.605.060 limiting general construction activities to weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and limiting pile driving and similar loud equipment activity to weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The proposed project would include demolition and construction activities. Potential noise impacts from these sources are analyzed below.

City of Richmond–100 38th Street Project
Initial Study/Consistency Checklist and Addendum Environmental Checklist FirstCarbon Solutions 129 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210021/Consistency Checklist/21210021 Richmond 100 38th Street Project Checklist.docx Construction-related Traffic Noise
Noise impacts from demolition and construction activities associated with the project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. One type of short-term noise impact that could occur during project construction would result from the increase in traffic flow on local streets, associated with the transport of workers, equipment, and materials to and from the project site.

The transport of workers and construction equipment and materials to the project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Because workers and construction equipment would use existing routes, noise from passing trucks would be similar to existing vehicle-generated noise on these local roadways. Typically, a doubling of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) hourly volumes on a roadway segment is required in order to result in an increase of 3 dBA in traffic noise levels, which is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Project-related construction trips would not double the hourly or daily traffic volumes along any roadway segment in the project vicinity. Additionally, General Plan Action SN4.E requires projects of 10 or more housing units or larger than 5 acres to prepare and submit construction traffic plans that mitigate noise, traffic, and dust during construction. In particular, the construction traffic plan would regulate construction vehicle speed, hours of operation, and safety standards to ensure construction activity noise is reduced. For these reasons, short-term intermittent noise from trucks would be minor when averaged over a longer time-period. Therefore, short-term construction-related noise impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would not exceed applicable significance thresholds and would be less than significant.

Construction Equipment Operational Noise
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during demolition and construction activities on the project site. Construction noise levels are rarely steady in nature and often fluctuate depending on the type and number of equipment being used at any given time. In addition, there could be times where large equipment is not operating and noise would be at or near normal ambient levels. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

The proposed foundation would not involve impact pile driving. Therefore, the site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading activities, would generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment that would be used in project construction is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery and compacting equipment, such as bulldozers, draglines, backhoes, front loaders, roller compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.